Where did the no votes on Amendment 2 come from?

[pstokely]

It passed by a huge margin in the cities, it was closer in the exurban areas. Do the rural areas care that much about a blob of cells?

[lander]

1. No...

Catholics and evangelicals ran a pervasive smear campaign, calling the amendment "2 Tricky" and literally claiming that it legalizes human cloning (the first provision, pretty much verbatim: No person shall clone or attempt to clone a human being.)

It was absolutely ridiculous. Besides that, St. Louis is a very Catholic city.

[pstokely]

4. It passed by a large margin in St. Louis City and County

It didn't lose by much in the Springfield area

[evlbstrd]

2. Ever notice how many little churches

there are in out-state Missouri? A woman tried to hand me Vote No propaganda outside my polling place yesterday. And I live in KC.

[Pugee]

3. Here, the NO vote was pushed by nocloning.org or something like that

Implying that it would allow cloning, even though the amendment banned human cloning. It was also pushed as an abortion issue in some literature.

[ogsball]

5. Here in Springfield the vote was aginst it. . .

. . . many churches, particularly the big ones, came out vocally against the issue, saying it was human cloning and that it would exploited women and that it would create a permanent tax, etc. But at my polling place I had never seem so many people in wheel chairs and with some kind of neurological handicapping condition. Those folks turned out.

Who voted against it? I suspect the younger healthier less than 60 year olds.

[pstokely]

6. It didn't lose by much there

http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrweb/countyresults.asp?eid=189&cids=21847&cboCounties=21847&cboSelectedCounties=21847&submit1.x=105&submit1.y=21

[Broken_Hero]

7. Rural MO is my guess

McDonald County is very red, and I don't doubt...there were close to 7,000 plus no votes, to a measley 1500 yes votes...lots of churches, lots of rw conservatives...

[Broken_Hero]

8. woah...I was way off, not as bad as I thought

http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrweb/countyresults.asp?eid=189&cids=21869&cboCounties=21869&submit1.x=63&submit1.y=8

wow, county is a bit bluer this time around...in 04...big time for the R's....

[protect our future]

9. A woman was handing out literature in front of my polling place

She was also holding a Vote No On Amendment 2 sign, and there was no one present to state the position of the other side. This was in midtown KC.

Were these people at other polling places in KC or elsewhere in MO?

According to the KC Star today, these people want to bring the issue up for a vote again.

[Broken_Hero]

10. no body like that

at our voting station...

[Pugee]

11. Yes, they were at our polling place with signs and literature in Randolph Cty

[wildflowergardener]

12. article in post

There was an article in the St. Louis Post Dispatch today about how the opponents are already planning on collecting signatures to vote to have it overturned.

They got people to vote against it by lying about it.

Meg

[loyalsister]

13. Some women opposed it

They felt the potential for exploitation was legitimate.
I disagreed, but could see their point.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Who or what did they think would be exploited?

Women VOLUNTEER their eggs so they can have a baby. Until there is a way to take only as many eggs as babies they want, there will be extra eggs. Now if they think the eggs are being exploited, that's nuts. If they are not used for stem cell research, they are thrown away. Now which is more exploitative - curing diseases or throwing eggs away?

[Pugee]

15. Patricia Heaton made the talking point that poor women would

sell their eggs to get money and it was putting them at risk. Of course, the amendment bans buying eggs. (and yes, she is a jerk!)

[loyalsister]

16. If you read the Amendment....

You see that women will be allowed to just donate their eggs as long as it is allowed under federal law.
The argument was that women could "sell" their eggs just recover "unpaid wages" if they were unamployed or something. It's a process that does require some down time, so they could possibly get by with it.
In that case, the women would wind up with a minimum benefit, while the actual people who harvest them make tons of money.

(4) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.

(17) “Valuable consideration” means financial gain or advantage, but does not include reimbursement for reasonable costs incurred in connection with the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transfer, or donation of human eggs, sperm, or blastocysts, including lost wages of the donor. Valuable consideration also does not include the consideration paid to a donor of human eggs or sperm by a fertilization clinic or sperm bank, as well as any other consideration expressly allowed by federal law.
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp

Under those circumstances, it is a fair point.
I can see both sides.

[wildflowergardener]

17. Selling eggs

Aren't men allowed to sell their sperm to sperm banks?

Meg

[loyalsister]

18. I'm not familiar with the law on that

If so, then that would be a case where the sexes are treated differently.
If men can sell their reproductive material and women can't, they are treated differently based on sex.
There was a thread asking if the Equal Rights Amendment should be introduced. That would be a perfect illustration of why it should be.

[wildflowergardener]

19. well

I'm afraid the only authority I can quote is "All My Children" when one of the men sold his sperm when he was low on cash, allowing his wife to steal it from the fertility clinic etc etc etc.

I'm sure soap opera's are always accurate : ).

Meg

[xmas74]

21. Men still sell sperm-

college boys do it all the time. Not much different in some ways than selling plasma-just a bit more money.

Women used to be able to sell their eggs in MO. A friend in college participated in a program for a nice chunk of change on a monthly basis-nearly $3000 a month. Problem was the procedure is a bit more invasive and time consuming than sperm donation. (Eggs included taking fertility drugs which sometimes caused heavy cramping and bleeding, abstaining from all vaginal intercourse since they company could actually sue you for the drugs you took if you became pregnant, the process of removing the eggs is painful, etc.)

The idea of stopping the selling (but donation is fine) was because egg donation sometimes did cause medical problems, compared to the ease of sperm donation.

[ogsball]

20. We were in St. Louis yesterday. . .

. . . and my wife say a sign about women being exploited in this medical research. She turned to me and asked, "where do I sign up." She's always ready to give up body parts for money, it just that they are usually mine.