The proposed constitutional amendment seeks to create a commercial-scientific right which will by design operate above and beyond the grasp of any governmental checks and balances. By its own language, well-concealed by the million dollar advertising machine selling the proposal, the amendment will strip any local, regional or statewide government of any right to do anything which would act to "discourage" or operate as a "disincentive" to the embryonic stem cell research. No legislature, no governor, no judge of any court in the state will have any control over any aspect of the research.

In essence, the proposed amendment creates a pre-eminent right: a pre-eminent right to conduct embryonic stem cell research. It will be legally greater than any of the hallowed rights by which America has stood as a shining beacon of ordered liberty to the world for more than 225 years.

For even our hallowed First Amendments rights are held in check and balance by reasonable restraints on their exercise. As one can not yell fire in a crowded theater, nor publish in the press knowingly false defaming things about someone, nor even conduct religious services in an unsafe manner, our most sacrosanct freedoms of speech, the press and of religious worship are limited. Mankind accepts these reasonable limits as necessary to insure the exercise and enjoyment of freedom by everyone.

However, if passed by the unknowing electorate of Missouri, the constitutional amendment's commercial-scientific research of embryonic stem cells will be subject to and only limited by the pocketbook consciences of those conducting the research. The same people to whom the financial windfalls - if any - shall accrue.

No state law, rule, regulation or other constitutionally guaranteed right will stand if it acts so as to enigmatically "discourage" or act as a "disincentive" to embryonic stem cell research.

No third world dictator could hope for more.

Our world - including its clean water and clean air - will be subject to the dictates of those who mislabel their proposals, redefine the terms of the debate to confuse the electorate, and who seek to establish their absolute of commercial-science as the paramount authority of law. The absolute of unchecked commercial-science is seeking the overthrow of the absolute of moral law.

The stakes simply do not get any higher.

Steven Rogers holds a doctorate in jurisprudence from Baylor University. He is aÿvisiting professor of Religious Freedom at Conception Seminary College, as well as an Oblate of Conception Abbey.

END