Rep. B.J. Marsh of district #136 seemed to signal how he will vote on a constitutional amendment to protect embryonic stem cell research without ever really saying it.
Meanwhile, his hard-charging, self-described "pro-life" Democratic challenger is clear. "I'm going to vote for it," said James Owen.
At the outset of my interview with the #136th incumbent Tuesday, Marsh seemed initially reluctant to stake out a position on Amendment 2. "The people are going to vote for it one way or the other. So hopefully, I won't have to," Marsh said. "However they vote, I will accept it."
When I asked Marsh his personal position, he replied, "that's my business." "I don't necessarily have a position on it. I don't even think most of my constituents care how I'm going to vote on it. They'll decide. It is a public issue but I don't necessarily see everyone going around saying how they'd vote on it," Marsh said.
But when pushed a bit more, Marsh began to open up about his personal health problems, and other afflictions that have faced his family.
"Of course my personal problems influence it. My wife passed away from brain cancer. I have a daughter-in-law with cancer, in chemo right now. I just think we need more research. We can't have too much research. I'm not for human cloning, but I'm not opposed to research," Marsh said.
He then went on to open up more about the politics of stem cell research. "I just don't know how I'm going to vote, David, I'm not trying to dodge you though. On stem cells, I flip back and forth. I lean towards supporting it, but then I wonder, where are they going to get the embryos from? That's the problem. I'm right in the middle," Marsh said. "But I can't see why we would stop any research. I think you can pretty much tell how I'll lean."
When asked about his opponent, James Owen, Marsh said, "My opponent, I know is a lot smarter than me."
But Owen said this race for the #136 legislative seat is about conviction. "He doesn't like to take positions on things. That's how he survives," Owen said.
But while Owen is clear on how he'll vote for the stem cell initiative, his logic could leave him open to critics.
"As long as the science is conducted in an ethical and moral manner, I don't think the progress needs to be stopped," Owen said.
Since Owen told me he considers himself pro-life, I asked if he believed an embryo was a life. "I do believe that it is a life at that stage," Owen responded.
Then, how could the pro-life Owen justify destroying a human life? "Well, what fertility clinics do is ok. As long as they take embryos from fertility clinics and not abortion clinics, that's acceptable. Do you think fertility clinics are destroying life,?" Owen said.
Then I asked Owen about his "pro-life" credentials.
Catanese - Why do you consider yourself pro-life?
Owen - Because I believe we need to be doing everything we can so there are fewer abortions. We need to promote adoption and healthcare programs.
Catanese - So do you believe abortion should be completely banned?
Owen - I don't think we can do that.
Catanese - Why not, couldn't Missouri pass a law like South Dakota?
Owen - It wouldn't be legal, because of Roe versus Wade.
Catanese - Then, do you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned?
Owen - I'm not running for U.S. Supreme Court.
Catanese - I know, but personally, do you believe it should be overturned?
Owen - I'm not running for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Both seem to be at least leaning towards support for embryonic research . . . So who's the "pro-life" candidate in the race for the #136?
8 comments:
Congratulations ... after getting whupped on by your fiends in the past few days ... this is good questioning which gets to the heart of the question.
*That* is informative reporting.
I hope Davis will ask these tough questions to Dan Scott, Charlie Norr, and myslef. Dan has yet to say where he stands on anything. His website issues section is still under consttruction. Why is he keeping so silent on the issues? It is about time someone ask him some tough questions David.
One other thing. If Mr. Owen wants to be a state rep, he may want to learn some basic constitutional principles. Roe v Wade is not law and does not keep a state from having abortion laws. The SCOTUS cannot legislate laws. Second the 10th amendment allows the states to create such laws. Third you sir are not pro life, anyone who allows abortion even w/ exceptions is no friend of life. The unborn child has 5th amendment rights to LIFE, liberty, and property and these cannot be removed w/o due process. Missouri laws states personhood begins at conception. So Missouri can and must enact an end to abortion and stop abusing their oath of office. A vote for anything else is a vote for death!
I just visited Mr.Owen's website. Tell me why a lawyer did not know that SCOTUS verdicts do not equal law. Is that what they are teaching in law school thses days? I respect your willingness to run and attempt to make a change, but statements like these will hurt your credibility with those who know how to read. I must admit Marsh is not much better and I am sure you will work hard.
The issue is not about the frozen embyros. they will quickly run out. The issue is SCNT. They want to create life just to kill it for a possible hope. I disagree with the tossing of embyros but when they start cloning they will kill a whole lot more then they throw away at fertility clinics. So stop trying to hide the real issues. The pro death crowd has promised false hopes when real cures lie within adult stem cell research.
Scott I have Cancer and spend more time then I care to in those clinics. They (Stowers) are not worried about those few cells they will collect. They need billions of eggs and such. They will HAVE to use SCNT to make more. This is cloning and they HAVE to kill the emybro to get the cells in that case and this is what we are not accepting. I understand the issue just fine and I hope you can respect out views that a life for a life is not a fair trade unless that life was Jesus.
What I am saying mamm, is that James should do the right thing and try to make the legal syatem return to its original intent. The Constitution in not a living document. You want new protecttion then you must amend it not do it abuse it. As I have said the 5th amendment protects LIFE. SCOTUS does not have to be heeded. IE Jackson's blatant ignoring of Cherokee V Georgia. SO Roe V wade does not affect Missouri law in the way you say. Case law is not statue. So if Missouri did make a law it should stand based on the 10th. the SCOTUS is not more powerful then the legislative branch. This is the root problem. Law Schools are indoctrinating this generation with lies. We know exactly what the writers meant and the SCOTUS job is to uphold not interupt the Constitution. THey interupt the laws but not the constitution. It is the same, at least it is suppose to be.
Scott please tell me how the SCOTUS can outline a constitutional right. What article or amendment gives the judicary that power. It is not there so thus they have no power to do so. It would take a constitutional amendment to do such a thing. So I stand by my arguement as do many constitutional scholars.
As for the stem cell issue. There is just not enough info yet. These findings were not published in a peer reviewed journal nor in a medical journal. So thus they are still in the discovery phase.
Did you see today in the news that MU has found that adult stem cells can now be formed into neurons which may help Parkisons. This is where the hope and healing lies, not SCNT.
Jesus would never allow the killing of the unborn to save or heal another. The amendment would still allow SCNT and thus we cannot as Christians allow this to pass. SCNT kills a baby wether they believe it does or not. SO your view on Jesus is unacceptable to a Christian and a pro lifer. There is no way you can say that Stowers will never employ SCNT. So please if you are pro life and Christian as you say, pray for wisdom and vote NO on Amendment 2
Post a Comment