August 8, 2020

The Truth About Michigan’s Proposal 2

If you live in Michigan you’ve probably seen the ads on TV urging you to vote no on proposal 2 because it’s both morally wrong and will raise taxes. I’ll get to those in a second.

If you don’t live in Michigan or if you only believe what’s on TV, Proposal 2 is an amendment to legalize embryonic stem cell research. Now, stem cell research is already legal in Michigan – but only adult stem cells.

So where do the embryonic stem cells come from? According to the proposal, only embryos created for IVF that would be discarded anyway can be used. When a couple chooses in vitro fertilization, multiple embryos are created in case the first one doesn’t take. It’s cheaper and faster that way, and that’s how it’s done. If the first one DOES take, the extras are simply thrown in the trash.

Proposal 2 would allow those embryos which would otherwise be thrown away to be used for research. That’s it. There’s no other type of embryo that could be used, there’s no selling of stem cells, and there’s no people getting pregnant to sell their aborted fetus for research. Proposal 2 specifically outlaws all of that.

Ok, but it’s going to raise my taxes right? WRONG! There’s nothing in proposal 2 about increasing taxes. The TV commercials are telling you about a system in place in other states to mislead you. Proposal 2 will not raise your Michigan taxes. It’s actually more likely that this will lower the costs of the Michigan businesses currently doing stem cell research.

If you don’t believe me, you can read the free press article that talks about it.

It’s also important not to get caught up in the pro life debate surrounding proposal 2 either. The embryos in question here already exist, and are already going to be thrown in a trash can. Proposal 2 isn’t supporting abortion, and it’s not creating more embryos. It’s simply asking to take them out of the trash can and use them for research – without raising your taxes.

It’s a PDF, but you can read the actual proposal here. I strongly encourage everybody to do so.

forex brokers list
About Ryan Jones

Ryan Jones is an SEO from Detroit. By day he works as a manager of SEO & Analytics at SapientNitro where his team performs SEO for Fortune500 clients. By night he's either playing hockey or attempting to take over the world with his own websites - which he would have already succeeded in doing had it not been for those meddling kids and their dog. The views expressed here have not been paid for and belong only to Ryan, not any of his employers or clients. Follow Ryan on Twitter at: @RyanJones, add him on Google+ or visit his personal website: www.RyanMJones.com

Comments

  1. You hit it right on the head Ryan. The only cells that could be used are those which would be thrown away. Why not use them to find cures to diseases?

    Voting yes on 2 is really the most pro-life stance there is. It will give people who are hurting a chance at a better life.

  2. Hi team.

    The cures and benefits we’d all love to see developed ARE being developed right now, but not in Michigan. They’re being developed using cord blood, adult skin cells that scientists just discovered they could turn into the exact same “pluripotent” cells they’re trying to make via Prop 2, through testes cells and they’ve even discovered a way to create the same cells from wisdom teeth.

    Lifesaving research can be performed in Michigan on ALL of that and many of those methods have already yielded hundreds of peer reviewed cures and benefits.

    Stem cells NEED NOT BE derived from the destruction of human embryos! The research being advanced by Prop 2 is LITERALLY obsolete!

    More here: http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2008/10/9/744/45014

    –Nick
    http://www.RightMichigan.com

  3. NIck, are you saying you’d rather throw them away in a trash can than use them to save somebody’s life?

    That’s a rather selfish argument.

    This proposal isn’t asking to create more embryos (in fact it’s outlawed in the proposal)

    They’re simply asking to use the ones we have for research instead of just throwing them in a trash can.

    Let’s say that those embryos are alive and full humans. Wouldn’t it be a nobler after death to spend it helping find a cure than rotting in a plastic bag?

  4. From what I have read, this type of stem cell research is already allowed. The action the proposal is really taking is to stop any sort of future regulation on embryonic stem cell research. It would prevent future constitutional changes regarding the use of embryonic stem cells which makes it very important that it is not passed so that we can make future decisions ourselves.

  5. Bob Ciaffone says

    Adult stem cell research is very helpful, but it is a complement to embryonic stem cell research, not a replacement. Would you have your quarterback give up the long pass just because he was a good short passer?
    Don’t be fooled. The people who knock Proposal 2 are nearly all doing so because of their personal religious beliefs, which are to be respected, but should no longer stay enshrined as state law. That is what Proposal 2 is really about.

  6. I couldn’t care less about the tax issue or the supposed moral issue. What bothers me about this is amending the state’s Constitution. The Constitution should not be for these type of pet issues, it should be for matters of state. That’s why I’m voting no. Find some other way to do this, stop abusing the Constitution.

  7. Why does the proposal need the following provision attached to it?

    “Prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict or discourage stem cell research, future therapies and cures.”

    I can understand using the otherwise-discarded embryoes for research, but I have a problem with hand-cuffing ourselves if in the future we need to change a law.

  8. Here are some informational vodcasts about Stem Cell Research from UM

  9. Comments 6 & 7 hit it on the head. The real problem with this proposal is how far reaching it is legally, without regard to the actual content. It specifically voids any current or future state and local laws that prevent, restrict or discourage this research. It’s much too vague and sweeping wording. Unfortunately, everyone is overlooking this real issue because of the religiously charged content.

  10. I asked a lawyer friend about the ‘far reaching implications’ by sending him the wording from the actual proposal and he said…
    “No law can prevent us from making changes in the future to that law or other laws that affect it. I read this section as basically saying that stem cell research is allowed under this new law, but other laws, such as privacy laws, etc., still apply so long as those laws don’t restrict stem cell research that is now allowed under this law. In other words, the general rules re medical research apply unless those general rules conflict with this new law. So to answer your question, we’re still free to change our minds in the future or to limit research, etc., in the future if we deem it necessary.”

  11. Good work, Ryan. You said exactly what needs to be said.

    Umbilical cord blood only creates stem cells for the blood. Only embryonic can make stem cells for the pancreas (Diabetes) and the best nervous system stem cells (Parkinson’s, spinal cord injuries). Embryonic stem cells, according to nearly every scientist, have the greatest potential of any kind of stem cell.

    The research is legal in Michigan, but it is illegal to use embryos. So, the only research going on in Michigan right now is from a 10-year-old embryo which has only one genetic makeup and is contaminated with mouse DNA. We need NEW stem cells to do productive research, the current research isn’t very helpful.

    Don’t throw away cures. Give parents the choice to donate their embryos to cure disease! VOTE YES ON 2!

  12. George Nicoloff says

    Proposal 2 is PRO-abortion period.It is part of their agenda.
    Vote NO to save lives.

  13. If they are going to be thrown away anyways, that would be okay with me. However its the last line of the proposal that gets to me. Proposal 2 would “Prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict or discourage stem cell research, future therapies and cures.” I don’t know about everyone else, but I don’t want a law that would prohibit future laws that could limit stem cell research. Prohibiting future laws against this research would mean that we can’t make new laws against it, but leaves the door wide open to make more lenient laws.

  14. George. did you even read it?

    It has absolutely NOTHING to do with abortion.

    I wish people would drop the whole abortion debate and start doing something about the unwanted pregnancies.

    Treat the cause, not the symptom.

  15. Brian Craig says

    @george: Yeah… save lives until they’re OUT of the womb, right? After that, life no longer matters to you, does it?

    Spoken like a true Neocon.

  16. California had the same thing proposed and they still haven’t found any cures after 3 billion dollars so what is the advantage of having it? We whould be spending money for nothing and killing life.

  17. Scott, we’re not killing anything. Proposal 2 doesn’t increase the amount of embryos created.

    once created, they are going to be discarded anyway.

    So we’re not killing more. We’re simply using what was already killed for research instead of throwing it in a trash can.

    Are you against organ donation? this is the same thing.

    As for “haven’t found a cure yet.” – these things take time. Look how long it took to cure malaria, or for flu shots, or smallpox. If it’s not quick and easy we shouldn’t do it?