Voters for the first time have rejected a referendum to fund human embryonic stem cell research, in New Jersey of all places, a liberal bastion.
This came despite the best attempts by liberals and MSM to hide the paramount reason for the controversy, that it was about EMBRYONIC stem cell research, still on full display the morning after as evidenced by hidelines to the left.
The stunning defeat, which betrayed all pre-election polls to the contrary, may or may not signal a turn away from this liberally created must have. The decision by NJ voters for the first time in 17 years to reject a ballot initiative, this one to allow the state to borrow $450 million to fund escr, may have been purely pragmatic: NJ's property taxes are the highest in the U.S., and it has the 3rd highest overall tax burden. NJ's state deficit is $3 billion and its debt load over $33.5 billion, making it the 4th most indebted state....
Pundits say NJ voters had simply had it, although I'm hopeful its not that simple, noting those same voters in that same election approved borrowing $200 million to preserve open spaces.
I'm also happy to note the big emotional guns didn't work this time either. Two pro-stem cell ads (excluding the word "embryonic") by Michael J. Fox as well as campaigning by Christopher Reeve's brother Benjamin didn't garner enough sympathy votes.
Meanwhile, Gov. Jon Corzine is now in a huge bind. It's no wonder he spent $200,000 of his own money to promote the failed referendum. According to the Associated Press:
He's already allocated $10 million for stem cell work this year and approved $270 million for stem cell research facilities. The governor said he was confident money from the private sector and universities would make the research facilities viable.
The governor is turning to exactly the right place, but his confidence may be short-lived (although I suspect it's false to begin with). Corzine will find the private sector isn't funding escr. It's a bad investment. Adult stem cell research and umbilical cord stem cell research are where all the action and cures are.
Justice prevails.. Let the people decide!! People are tired of the same old same old rhetoric. Keep spreading the word abut ESCR!! the more educated people are, the more they will turn measures like ESCR funding DOWN!
I'm so happy! What a huge win, especially in such a liberal state.Posted by: Kristen at November 8, 2007 9:28 AM
Do you think the ms media will pick it up since it is something of a surprise?Posted by: hippie at November 8, 2007 9:38 AM
Duh, okay I see they have.Posted by: hippie at November 8, 2007 9:43 AM
The stem cell research should be federally funded. It is absurd for states to be scratching together piecemeal funding for something so important.Posted by: Ray at November 8, 2007 9:44 AM
How about privately funded? I would like to see government spend my money on getting services to real people. There is no economic incentive for the private sector to provide health care for the poor, however there is plenty of financial reward for finding treatments. It would seem to make more sense for research to be privately funded and for services, especially for the poor, to be publicly funded.Posted by: hippie at November 8, 2007 9:54 AM
Ray, you're all about choice. Why do my federal tax dollars have to be used for something I so vehemently think is wrong? Don't I deserve "choice?"
Never mind the fact that NOT ONE advancement or success has come from using embryonic stem cells. I'm ALL for adult stem cell research!
I can't wait for 2009. If the Democrats take control, which seems likely, embryonic stem cell research will begin to receive federal funding.Posted by: tp at November 8, 2007 10:50 AM
Why do my federal tax dollars have to be used for something I so vehemently think is wrong? Don't I deserve "choice?"
Do I get to choose not to pay for bombs and bullets that kill innocent Iraqi civilians? No?
What about my tax dollars that go to pro-life pregnancy centers? Where's my choice there?Posted by: tp at November 8, 2007 10:55 AM
tp, just like I don't have a choice when it comes to abortion patients who catch diseases. Who do you think foots the medical bills when these women catch HIV? Taxpayers.Posted by: heather at November 8, 2007 11:12 AM
Who pays for women and their children when abortion is botched? Taxpayers! You're correct. Where is my choice?Posted by: heather at November 8, 2007 11:16 AM
Heather, if you compare the number of woman the taxpayers are supporting who had babies to the number taxpayers are supporting who had "botched abortions" I'm sure you'd find the ones having babies are way more expensive to society.Posted by: Hal at November 8, 2007 11:20 AM
Well, where is my choice?Posted by: heather at November 8, 2007 11:28 AM
I live in NJ; the polls did not predict a victory and I think no conclusions can be drawn from the rejection.
I think the relatively close vote had to do with the fact that it was funded with borrowed money to do things that the private sector should fund by itself.
Codey's contention that the research would benefit humanity has a technical side that is a matter of opinoin (yes or no can be discussed) but a financial side that is not a matter of opinion: it is not in the charter of state government to fund global improvements in health care.
Hal, you're pro choice. You shouldn't mind who you have to pay for. Rememeber, pro choice means someone making the choice that's best for them. Even if it means that they want to collect welfare.Posted by: heather at November 8, 2007 11:32 AM
Please don't forget that the children grow up to contribute to society. That is why we need to support our educational system as well as health care for children. They are our future.
Also, the gov't analyzes and publishes data on the costs of dependency. The cost per capita of indigent children is far less than that of adults. The annual cost of one disabled adult is about ten times more expensive than one poor kid receiving assistance, and the kid will age out and start contributing whereas many disabled folks never will.
Welfare spending is like 3% of the budget. Truly a drop compared to the military. I know people who have been on welfare and it really helped them. They were only on it for six months to a year and again became productive contributors. We should be happy to help them.
This society certainly has the resources to help the children who are the very ones who will comprise society in the future.Posted by: hippie at November 8, 2007 11:34 AM
Heather, you are right, I don't mind paying. I never complain of the cost of welfare to the taxpayer. I was just struck by your complaint about paying for medical care for women who have suffered botched abortions. There are many reasons to be against "botched abortions," but the cost to the taxpayers isn't one of them.Posted by: Hal at November 8, 2007 12:37 PM
Hal, the beauty of not being pro choice.Posted by: heather at November 8, 2007 12:40 PM
Hal, you know, I've been kind of rude to you lately. I'm sorry. I'm not mad at you. I actually like you. I know that some of you will never believe as we do. I also realize that some of you don't believe in God. My brother is agnostic. *Peace*...I have to ask though, isn't it depressing not believing in an afterlife?Posted by: heather at November 8, 2007 12:45 PM
Heather, glad to here you're not mad at me. This is an emotional topic. I understand the pro-life position and why you guys are so passionate about it. You seem like a decent person too. I would be very happy to hear that there was an afterlife, but I'm not "depressed" that there isn't. It's just the way it is.Posted by: Hal at November 8, 2007 12:56 PM
tp, just like I don't have a choice when it comes to abortion patients who catch diseases. Who do you think foots the medical bills when these women catch HIV? Taxpayers.
Posted by: heather at November 8, 2007 11:12 AM
Abortions give you HIV?Posted by: Laura at November 8, 2007 1:06 PM
Yes,...Bat boy just told me so.Posted by: heather at November 8, 2007 1:19 PM
Hey Kristin, Heather? What's your take on in vitro fertilization? This is a loaded question.Posted by: Ray at November 9, 2007 12:30 AM
Abortions give you HIV?
Posted by: Laura at November 8, 2007 1:06 PM********************************************************************** Perhaps if you knew a thing or 2 about SOME abortion patients, you would realize that a lot of them sleep around. This is how diseases are contracted. That includes HIV.Posted by: heather at November 9, 2007 2:20 AM
How about a woman coming in for abortion #10? Do you think that all of those abortions are from sleeping with the same guy?...................................... NOT!Posted by: heather at November 9, 2007 2:24 AM
THe other side of the coin Heather is that there are a lot more woman having abortions who are married than are "coming in for abortion #10." I don't dispute it's happened, but I bet it's pretty rare.
The most from any woman I know was three, and yes, they were all from sleeping with the same man.Posted by: hal at November 9, 2007 8:59 AM
How about a woman coming in for abortion #10? Do you think that all of those abortions are from sleeping with the same guy?...................................... NOT!
Posted by: heather at November 9, 2007 2:24 AM
Look, you've had accidental pregnancies by different men, I haven't.
Why don't YOU tell us how that works.
I have had one. Who cares what you say anymore. Pro life blog stalker! There must be a reason that you want to talk to us. I wouldn't sit around and talk to "nuts" all day, every day. BTW, I haven't been pregnant 10 times. I am not an irresponsible breeder. I thought I'd told you. Abortion patients are reproductive slobs.Posted by: heather at November 9, 2007 9:25 AM
I have had 1 unplanned pregnancy. Laura is just upset, because I didn't choose abortion. That's PC at it's best!! If your pregnancy doesn't happen under the most desirable of circumstances, kill the kid. Now, that's anti choice!Posted by: heather at November 9, 2007 12:12 PM
Another way abortions kill by HIV is the failure of abortionists to change gloves, sterilize instruments, etc., between killings.
A copy of minutes of a staff meeting on Planned Parenthood stationary retrieved from a PP abortuary dumpster reported a discussion of whether or not they could cut costs by not requiring the killers to change gloves between patients. The verdict was that they could, since the gloves were for the protection of the abortionist, not of the patient.Posted by: LL at November 10, 2007 3:54 PM
Embryonic? Okay. And they call it "fetal alcohol syndrome," not "baby alcohol syndrome."Posted by: Doug at November 12, 2007 10:08 PM