Last night, I switched back and forth between Michigan's second gubernatorial debate and the Detroit Tigers' win (yeah!) over the Oakland Athletics. You can listen and/or watch the debate at WOOD TV's website.
Towards the end of the debate, Granholm laid down a major league whopper regarding her position on human cloning. After discussing her position on embryonic stem cell research, Granholm said something like, "I think it is important if you don't clone embryos for the purpose of doing the research but it's limited to those embryos that would be discarded. That's important to allow that life-sustaining, prolife research to go on."
I was completely surprised by that statement because as readers of my blog know, Governor Granholm has been a huge supporter of H.B. 4900. H.B. 4900 would legalize human cloning in Michigan. Granholm's been using the state of Michigan web site to push this legislation for months. She spoke approvingly about this legislation in her State of the State address and even promoted it on a weekly radio address just last week.
Why does Granholm feel the need to be say researchers should be limited to "those embryos that would be discarded" and then work hard to pass legislation which would allow researchers to try to clone and kill human embryos?
Governor Granholm also lied during the second debate (just like she did during the first debate) about her veto of the Michigan's Legal Birth Definition Act, a law which attempted to stop partial-birth abortion in Michigan. She claimed she'd be in favor of a ban on partial-birth abortion and would sign it as long as the ban had exceptions for the life and health of the mother and that the Michigan's ban didn't have these.
Unfortunately, for Granholm the truth is certainly not on her side. You can read the legislation online here. If you do, you'll notice this section which describes how doctors would be "immune from criminal, civil, or administrative liability" if (my emphasis)
"in that physician's reasonable medical judgment and in compliance with the applicable standard of practice and care, the procedure was necessary in either of the following circumstances:(i) To save the life of the mother and every reasonable effort was made to preserve the life of both the mother and the perinate.
(ii) To avert an imminent threat to the physical health of the mother, and any harm to the perinate was incidental to treating the mother and not a known or intended result of the procedure performed.
Granholm is lucky Michigan's media outlets are either clueless, lazy or so biased they don't take the time to check if Granholm's claims are true or not.
I was confused and concerned by Dick DeVos' responses last night on the current abortion laws in MI. When asked if, as Governor, he would sign legislation further restricting abortion, he dodged the question and just focused on partial-birth abortion.
I think even the moderator was surprised so he asked for clarification and in the end DeVos said the laws in MI are "sufficient." Maybe I'm wrong, I hope so, but it sounds like he would be content just banning partial-birth abortions? I thought DeVos was clearly pro-life, but now I'm just not sure.
Hi Chris,
I wasn't pleased with his response either. I'm not sure what he meant because Michigan's law on abortion (which can't be enforced right now because of Roe v. Wade) made abortion illegal. So he might have been saying that he wouldn't push for legislation banning all abortions since Michigan already has laws like that. I'm not certain.
He's been a supporter of the prolife movement in Michigan so I don't doubt he's prolife but he wasn't very clear in how he responded to that question.
Jivin J, thanks for the response. You're probably right; however Mr. DeVos needs to be clearer in answering questions in the final debate and in general. Unless he was purposely trying to be vague in order to dodge an issue that might sway a few undecided voters? Which I understand given that Governor Granholm has a slight lead now and every undecided voter is important.