The #138th: Helms & Lampe Split on Stem Cells

The two candidates vying for Springfield's #138th legislative district seat are split on a ballot initiative designed to protect embryonic stem cell research.

Republican challenger Steve Helms said he will vote "no" on Amendment 2 for two reasons, one being legal, the other being budgetary.

Incumbent Democrat Rep. Sara Lampe said she will enthusiastically vote for the constitutional amendment because she believes the research holds life-saving cures that could one day help many people, including her neighbor.

Helms said the problem is that most people are "very confused" about this science. Helms said he favors adult stem cell research and is opposed to cloning. But his biggest objection about the amendment is how it has been written.

"As I've read it, it would put any regulation that the state would want to require down the road, off limits," Helms said. "Stem cell research, adult and embryonic are relatively new and emerging sciences. New things come out every day. As a potential legislator, I don't want to put that off to the federal government."

"I can't look my neighbor in the face and tell her I would vote against a cure that will help extend life. I can't do that," Lampe said in a wide-ranging interview. "Plus, I truly believe that God gave us DNA to deal with. It's about deciding that as individuals."

Catanese question to Helms - Do you think destroying an embryo to extract a stem cell is destroying a human life?
Helms - It's destroying a potential human life.

Catanese question to Lampe - Do you think an embryo is a human life?
Lampe - I believe it is about producing life that is here on earth now.
Catanese - But what about an embryo? Do you believe that is a human life?
Lampe - I actually believe that life happens a little later. I disagree with that piece. I don't think that's the issue though, the issue is are we going to save life that's walking around on earth? Are we going to do that? And I believe we should.
Catanese - Doesn't the other side have a point when they talk about when life begins. Don't we have to define that?
Lampe - I don't think so. I think that's what happens in our churches. I think it's very private. That's why I go to church, to have those discussions. I don't want to have those discussions on the House floor, We have them and I think they are really deep faith issues, and I say to you, if that's what you want to believe, I value you, I honor you, but I need you to value and honor my position as well, that I believe stem cell will help my neighbor. Because, she's alive, she's talking to me and she's walking around everyday. It isn't that I don't value what you believe. The problem with the other position Dave, is that it doesn't include my position.

Helms believes the amendment is too constraining on the government's flexibility to spend money in the budget. He said it would tie the hands of lawmakers. "Say MSU decides to do something with stem cell, so they're getting money from the state and so we have a budgetary crunch, and we need to cut, which has been done in the past. I don't want to ever cut money from them but maybe we do. If they were involved in stem cell research as I read this bill, we could not cut their program, period," Helms said.

"Now we don't have to give them more money but if you had pockets within the state budget, you couldn't cut or reduce, that would force a lower or greater reduction in an area you may not want to," Helms said.

Helms also has a problem with amending the state constitution. "The Constitution should be for broad-based rights and I think adding 5 or 7 pages into it is going too far. I'm really not a fan of adding into the constitution things that should be handled in the regular laws," Helms said.