Missouri judge upholds stem-cell ballot measure

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- A Cole County judge on Thursday upheld the language of a ballot proposal to protect stem-cell research and treatments in Missouri, rejecting a claim that the measure's stated ban on human cloning is misleading.

Supporters of the proposed constitutional amendment, who have already raised more than $4 million toward the effort, immediately said they would start gathering the petition signatures needed to get it on the November ballot.

The ballot measure, titled the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, includes language that would "ban human cloning."

But opponents, including a University of Utah neurobiologist and the Roman Catholic bishop for Kansas City, argued in court that the title and ballot language are deceptive for failing to classify a certain form of stem cell research, known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, as the scientific equivalent of human cloning.

Those challenging the ballot language had suggested that Cole County Senior Judge Byron Kinder rewrite it. But the judge instead upheld the wording, ruling swiftly from the bench at the hearing's conclusion.

'Sufficient and fair'

"I have read this ballot initiative over and over again," Kinder said after presiding over several hours of testimony. "Most of what I heard today goes to the issue of what you have to convince voters. The ballot title is sufficient and fair and the language is neutral."

Supporters of the ballot measure now must gather at least 145,000 petition signatures, coming from six of the state's nine congressional districts, to qualify the measure for a statewide vote.

"We'll print the petitions as soon as we can," said Donn Rubin, chairman of the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures. "It's time to get on and get signatures."

The court challenge focused on a research procedure in which the nucleus of a human egg is replaced with the nucleus from a skin or nerve cell. The altered egg then is stimulated to grow in a lab dish, and researchers remove the resulting stem cells.

The ballot measure defines human cloning as occurring when the product of that process is implanted in a woman's uterus. The proposed amendment stipulates that "no person may clone or attempt to clone a human being."

But opponents argued that somatic cell nuclear transfer is human cloning, regardless of whether there is an attempt to implant the product in a woman.

"The initiative does not ban human cloning," testified Maureen Condic, a University of Utah associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy and expert witness hired by the plaintiffs, who are known as Missourians Against Human Cloning. "The only way to ban human cloning is to prevent or ban somatic cell nuclear transfer."

Attorney Kevin Theriot, who represents five Missouri residents in the suit against Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, had asked Kinder to order a rewording of the ballot to include the caveat that it would "allow human cloning for biomedical research."

The challengers also wanted the court to eliminate ballot language stating the measure would ensure "Missouri patients have access to any therapies and cures" derived from stem-cell research. Another alternative offered would make the ballot distinguish between "reproductive" human cloning and "therapeutic" cloning for research purposes.

Attorneys for the state and a group of interveners that includes former Missouri Sens. John Danforth and Thomas Eagleton countered that the vast majority of scientific literature does not define somatic cell nuclear transfer as human cloning.

The language suggested by the plaintiffs "does nothing but confuse," said Karen King Mitchell, chief deputy state attorney general.

Testifying in support of the ballot language were William Neaves, president and chief executive officer of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, and Douglas Melton, a co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute.

Asked by Kinder what human diseases have been cured by embryonic stem cell research, Melton replied that such medical breakthroughs are likely a decade away. But the procedure holds significant promise, he told the judge.

"It's not going to happen in the next year or two," Melton said. "But it's certainly conceivable. I believe it will happen in my lifetime."

At the trial's outset, Theriot said the hearing would not include a discussion of when life begins, morality and other issues that define the stem cell debate but aren't relevant to the legal challenge.

But when Bishop Robert Finn of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph took the stand as a witness intervening on behalf of the ballot measure's opponents, that's exactly what transpired, leading to several rebukes by Kinder.

"The teachings of the Catholic Church are important to the Catholic Church and the bishop, but we're here to determine a ballot issue," the judge said. "I understand this is a political process, but my determination is not a political or a religious one. It's pure words."

With that explanation, an attorney representing the Missouri Catholic Conference curtailed his questions of Finn.

Theriot said he was not certain if his clients will appeal Kinder's ruling. So for now, the debate over stem cell research in Missouri shifts from the courtroom to the court of public opinion, Kinder noted.

"I'm sure it will be argued from the pulpits and the street corner," the judge said.