From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

After going through the anguish of the trial for the brutal murder of young Samantha Mayer, her family will now have to face the agony of going through another sentencing trial after the Idaho Supreme Court set aside his death sentence.

In the course of vacating the sentence, the Court kicked the Bible out of Idaho’s judicial system for good measure.

The murderer, Darrell Payne, was found guilty of the kidnapping, rape and murder of Mayer, a BSU coed, and has been on death row since 2002. In truth, he should have been executed six years ago, satisfying the demands of justice and allowing Samantha’s family to find closure and some measure of peace.

In the summer of 2000, Payne had previously sexually assaulted two 14-year-old girls in Barber Park and raped another Boise woman in her apartment before abducting and murdering Mayer while she was on her way to class early that fall.

The Court’s ruling recounts the brutal and heinous nature of his crime. According to the ruling, which you may read at the link following this column, the murderer forced his young victim into her own car at gunpoint and then raped her, “leaving bruises, cuts and scrapes on her face, back and buttocks.”

Then, after raping her, he shot her in the back of the head, tossed her body in the back seat of her car, drove her back to his home and dumped her body in a concrete drainage tank containing water and garbage, after putting a plastic bag over her head. When her body was found, she was found with her clothing leaving her body in a sexually exposed position.

He then went into his house, ate some left-over pizza, took the victim’s keys, purse and credit cards and took a drive to the Oregon coast. If there ever was a man who without question deserves to die, and deserved to die six years ago, Darrell Payne is it.

But, according to the Idaho Supreme Court, District Judge Thomas Neville impermissibly allowed victim impact statements from individuals other than Samantha’s immediate family, allowed them to express their opinions of Payne and the sentence he deserved, and quoted the Bible in support of the death penalty.

Samantha’s family members and friends, whose lives were utterly devastated by her inhumane murder, variously described Payne, according to the ruling, as “evil, a waste of aspirin, a sociopath, a cold-blooded killer, unremorseful, a predator, cold and calculating, not a man, not even human, selfish, a coward, a pathetic monster, a wimp and a man without a conscience.”

Anybody got a problem with that? If your daughter were kidnapped, raped, murdered and dumped in a concrete tank by a guy who then had a spot of lunch and used your daughter’s car and credit cards to take a jaunt to the coast, I believe you’d think - and be willing to say - much the same thing. And you would be convinced that your opinion regarding what should be done to the man who wantonly took the life of your daughter should count for something in our system of justice.

Well, the Court ruled that “none of these statements were admissible,” and set aside his death sentence on the grounds that such statements were impermissibly “inflammatory.” The Court added insult to injury by emphasizing in the text of their ruling that victim impact testimony took a full day, as if her family and friends did not even deserve eight hours of the court’s time to describe their loss.

Further, the Court ruled that friends of the family should not have been permitted to recount the impact of the crime on them, even though they were as ravaged by the crime as Samantha’s immediate family.

Two of the disallowed impact statements were from Samantha’s best friends, both of whom were in her wedding, and will experience this tragic loss for the rest of their lives.

And then to add frosting to this sorry cake, the Court unanimously ruled, even though every homicide statute in the United States is founded upon the Sixth Commandment, that the mention of any passages from the Bible that call for the death penalty for murder is likewise inadmissible since they represent “calls to religious authority as the basis for punishment.”

Samantha’s own father, in his victim impact statement, was the one who told the court, “Numbers 35:16 states, ‘If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.’”

He also quoted the words of Deuteronomy 22:25: “But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.”

When a father cannot appeal to Scripture in asking for justice for his own murdered daughter our courts are on the verge of losing any pretext to moral authority they might have.

As Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel has said, “Citations to the incorporation of this Commandment (’You shall not murder’) from colonial times to the present are legion. Courts have been very candid in tracing the prohibition against murder back to the Sixth Commandment.”

Well, if such declarations are “inadmissible,” our system of justice has no proper foundation at all because the Founders based our entire system of government on a “call to religious authority,” the conviction that our civil rights - which include Samantha’s right to life - are gifts to us from our Creator.

If the Court were to be consistent on this matter, it would have to prevent any American citizen or attorney from so much as even referring to the Declaration of Independence in a court of law.

Forcing Samantha’s family to relive their pain in a second sentencing hearing strikes me as cruel and unusual all by itself. Where do they go for justice and fairness?
The victim’s father, Paul Blomberg, told the Idaho Statesman, “We want to move on with our lives, and we can’t do that until this is over.”
Justice and compassion are two sides of the same coin. When justice is done, when perpetrators are adequately punished for their crimes, it provides some expression of compassion and closure for those who loved the victim. Injustice, on the other hand, as we have here, is a gross form of hardheartedness toward the victim’s family and friends and shows no appreciation or regard for their pain and suffering.

Injustice instead inflicts a fresh cycle of agony and heartache on the victim’s family and shows an inexcusable preference for the so-called rights of callous killers.

It appears that the Court primarily cited previous court rulings rather than the law itself in its opinion. Perhaps it’s time to scrap bad precedent and go back to the law itself.

Whether or not the “law” and precedent dictated the outcome of the Court I will leave to those with more knowledge of technicalities and loopholes in code.

What I do know is that even if the “law” has been upheld, justice has not been done.

And since the only purpose of law is the implementation of justice, something is badly, badly wrong with this picture.

Idaho Supreme Court: Idaho v. Payne

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

Let’s start this discussion by admitting a very wrong guess. We have written in this column months ago that Hillary Clinton was all but certain to be the Democrat nominee. It would take a lot of energy and a determined interest to know how on earth she managed to squander a huge opening advantage. But she did, and it probably doesn’t matter much to the pro-Life movement because Barack Obama is every bit as committed to killing the innocent as Clinton. (Maybe some smart guy will write a decent book as an offering to political junkies explaining her melodramatic implosion).

So here we are: Obama versus McCain.

There will plenty of weeks to discuss this race. For today, let’s consider the drama unfolding around Obama’s pick for Vice-President.

One of the folks being touted as an alternative to the Hillary VP disaster is Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. Media pundits correctly point to the fact that Sebelius comes from a leaning Republican state in the Midwest; she is a woman – and she is not Hillary Clinton.Those are all credible facts in Sebelius’ favor.

But those same media analysts go to the next level and describe her as some sort of “moderate”.

That will be a hard sell.

The most damaging thing we’re aware of is her symbiotic relationship with George Tiller – America’s most notorious abortionist. He is credited with providing much of the campaign finance to her first election. She has reciprocated by doing much to protect him from criminal prosecution for his flouting of Kansas law prohibiting late term abortions. (Her latest act was to appoint a pro-abortion Attorney General who has worked overtime to keep records away a Grand Jury investigating allegations against Tiller).

Now a new scandal has emerged: Sebelius feted George Tiller and his abortion clinic staff at the Governor’s Mansion in April of 2007 – while Tiller was under criminal investigation. To make matters worse, this political fundraising event was paid for by taxpayers until a pro-Life group forced the issue just two weeks ago.

While McCain has shown no disposition toward using the bully-pulpit to defend preborn children, he may be moved to do so should Obama be foolish enough to select Sebelius.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

The very close win by Justice Horton on Tuesday represents a narrow escape for Idaho families.

We need only watch the evening news to see the disaster being constructed by judicial revolutionaries in California and New York to realize the magnitude of trouble committed liberals on the bench can bring to quiet, unsuspecting villages.

John Bradbury, a closet liberal, nearly pulled off a startling upset.

His television ads were brilliantly manipulative. He plugged into conservative anger over the manipulation by Idaho’s elites of the judicial election process. Bradbury hoped to focus conservative anger at Horton – a beneficiary of the appointment game that has been out of control for several years now. And it almost worked.

With over 149,000 votes cast on Tuesday, Bradbury lost by just 196 votes.

He would be getting ready for a pretty new robe if it weren’t for the diligence of our friend, Pastor Bryan Fischer, at the Idaho Values Alliance. We have partnered with him for several years on the Gem State Voter Guide – and it was Bradbury’s answers to this year’s survey which provided the dimmest insight into exactly how Judge Bradbury would reign from the Supreme Court.

While there were very limited resources to get the word out about Bradbury, the fact is enough conservatives learned that he was hard-core judicial activist from the Voter Guide to make good our narrow escape.

This situation puts a focus on how essential the Voter Guide project is, and to the need for meaningful reform of our judicial election process. Idaho’s legislative leaders must pay greater attention to this problem in coming sessions.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

The fitness of Kirk Sullivan to continue as the chairman of the Idaho Republican Party has again been called into question by late-breaking developments in the primary campaign for legislative seats in District 21.

These races featured conservative incumbent legislators - Sen. Russ Fulcher, Rep. Cliff Bayer, and Rep. John Vander Woude - facing off against challengers Steve Ricks, Jefferson West, and Richard Jarvis. The same troika of challengers spent $2,000 on an Idaho Statesman ad attacking Idaho Chooses Life for endorsing the incumbents, falsely accusing ICL’s Executive Director, David Ripley, of implying that they hold pro-abortion views.

Last week, a form letter, written on official party letterhead, was mailed widely in District 21, arriving in mailboxes on Wednesday or Thursday, and giving the distinct impression that the Republican Party had officially endorsed the challengers in those hotly contested races.

No less than three times the incumbents are smeared as members of the “good old boy” network and the reader is bludgeoned no less than nine times - nine! - with the phrase “special interests” to imply that it was the party’s official position that Fulcher, Bayer and Vander Woude are in the bag for powerful lobbyists.

Although each letter was identical in content, different committeemen signed them, apparently sending the letters to party members in their own precincts, thus giving the impression that they had written the letter themselves. According to the note at the bottom of each letter, the mailing was “gladly paid (for) by the Ricks for Senator Committee.”

Sullivan was immediately contacted by concerned party members, and by candidates whose fortunes would be directly affected by the false impression created by the letter. However, Sullivan failed to return phone calls for four days, and then weakly promised only that he would look into the matter. (An IVA phone call to Sullivan’s office yesterday was not returned.)

According to one source, Sullivan claimed on Saturday that he did not know how to get hold of Mr. Ricks, even though his home and work numbers were accessible in seconds via the internet. By then, of course, it was too late to protect the integrity of the electoral process.

Tuesday evening, Sullivan made vague noises about initiating legal action against those who misrepresented the party by sending the letter, but the threat appears to be empty and toothless saber rattling on his part.

Contrast this with Mr. Sullivan’s actions 2 ½ years ago, when a similar missive had left some with the impression that the party was endorsing Brandi Swindell in her run for a seat on the Boise City Council. He wasted no time in issuing a public clarification, distancing the Party from Ms. Swindell’s campaign so fast it’d give you a nose bleed.

Yet in this case, he dithered around for four days and then did nothing, despite the fact that the false impression created by the letter was likely to have a material impact on a campaign.

While Fulcher and Bayer survived their primary challenges, Sullivan’s failure to take decisive clarifying action likely cost John Vander Woude his seat in the legislature. Vander Woude lost his race against Jarvis by a scant 55 votes, and it is entirely possible that enough primary voters were influenced by the deceptive nature of the letter into thinking that Vander Woude was being officially opposed by his own party.

If only 28 voters changed their minds about Vander Woude based on the letter, that would have been enough to deny him a seat that should rightfully be his.

Add to this that any number of Democrats, crossing over to vote against Bill Sali (the runner-up in that race, Matt Salisbury, got an astonishing 8,000 votes more than Walt Minnick) may well have decided to create mischief in other races as long as they were meddling with the GOP ballot.

Vander Woude had a solid voting record as a pro-life, pro-family conservative during his one term in office, and thus this underhanded tactic has likely deprived Idaho families of a consistent and dependable voice and vote on social issues.

Sali’s race makes it abundantly clear that it is harmful to the prospects of conservative Republicans for the party to hold open primaries. The rank-and-file members of the GOP recognize this, and have forced the party establishment to move toward closed primaries whether they want to or not.

Sullivan has fought the grassroots on the primary issue every step of the way, and the results from District 21, ending in the unseating of a social conservative, will only foment further unrest among the already agitated GOP grassroots.

Word on the street is that the Central Committee in Twin Falls cast a unanimous no-confidence vote in Sullivan’s leadership and similar no-confidence votes are scheduled for or have already been held in Cassia and Minidoka counties, among others. The floor seems to be falling out from under the current chairman.

Sullivan will face a challenge for party chairmanship at the state convention next month, and this District 21 debacle is certainly not going to help his chances. The party elites have rallied around Sullivan, and have used heavy-handed pressure in a number of ways to boost his chances of re-election.

But the natives are restless, and the current alternative, Rod Beck, who is leading the charge to close the GOP primaries, has repeatedly locked horns with the party elites over the issue and would be the establishment’s worst nightmare.

One possible outcome? The party elites, seeing the handwriting on the wall, may ask Sullivan to step aside and appeal to Norm Semanko to step forward as a compromise candidate. Beck is prepared to support Semanko’s bid for the post, but Semanko, out of a concern for party unity, has put his plans to run for the chairmanship on hold.

Semanko is universally well-liked, and if the party is looking for a unifier in the wake of unhappiness with Sullivan’s leadership, Semanko may be just the man for the job.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

The task of sorting through all the candidates with their accompanying political baggage is daunting at best, and impossible at worst. Because I receive numerous inquiries for voting information each election cycle, this post will detail my personal voting preferences.

I do not claim to have any preternatural knowledge of issues or candidates. However, because of my personal experiences and connections, combined with my addiction to political news, I usually have sufficient information to form an opinion. Over the years, these opinions have overwhelmingly been proven correct.

I will use for my reference the Bonneville County sample ballot, which once again shows us that Democrats have very few - if any - primary races. Their presidential selections have already been made in CLOSED caucus back in February, so I don’t know why their candidates appear on the ballot. We can count on many if not all of them to vote in the OPEN Republican primary in order to sway voting towards the most liberal Republicans, who, in many cases, were originally Democrats. (Remember former Speaker of the Idaho House, Bruce Newcomb? He was originally his county Democrat chairman, but could not get elected until he put the all-important “R” behind his name on the ballot. For actual documents proving Democrats purposefully vote Republican, see GrassRootsIdaho.)

I strongly urge all voters to check out the responses given on the Idaho Values Alliance Voters Guide.

So, let’s skip to the Republican side of the ballot.

For United States Senator, my choice is Fred Adams, of Idaho Falls. Jim Risch simply has too much baggage. I cannot vote for him under any circumstances. In the general election, I will be voting for independent candidate Rex Rammell.

For US House of Representatives for Idaho’s Second District, my choice is Gregory Nemitz. This is a man who is founded on constitutional principles, a claim incumbent Mike Simpson simply cannot make.

In District 31, the gerrymandered district stretching some 200 miles from the Teton Valley to the Utah border, otherwise known as the “east coast of Idaho”, I endorse Tom Loertscher for Representative Seat B. I have no preference for Seat A.

In District 32, I endorse Erik Simpson for Representative Seat A. He is young, energetic, and conservative. Ann Rydalch is tired, stuck in the past, and has a record of raising taxes.

In District 33, I recommend giving Kenneth Walton, the perennial opponent of Bart Davis, an opportunity to serve in the legislature. Bart Davis has risen to leadership in the Idaho Senate, but fails on so many fronts to deliver on conservative issues. I also consider a number of his positions and actions to have been unethical.

For Bonneville County Commissioner, I endorse Dave Radford, a man who has proven pro-life credentials, and a love of the constitution. His challenger, Harold Jones, is also a good man, but a bit of an unknown quantity and too inexperienced.

For Bonneville County Sheriff I endorse Paul Wilde, not because I know him well, but because he is highly recommended by recently-retired Sheriff Byron Stommell, a man I respect.

For Supreme Court Justice, I recommend the incumbent, Joel Horton. I vigorously object to the manner in which he became the incumbent. Justice Linda Copple Trout purposely retired mid-term to allow her replacement to be appointed by the Judicial Council rather than allow her position to be filled as an open seat, completely at the whim of the supposedly uninformed voters of Idaho. However, in this case Judge Horton has revealed himself to be a strong supporter of the Idaho Constitution, rather than a fan of judicial activism, as reported in the Idaho Values Alliance Voter Guide.

Though I do not have the opportunity to vote in Idaho’s First Congressional District race, I wholeheartedly endorse Rep. Bill Sali. This is a man who has been a champion of the unborn, lower taxes, smaller government, and the US Constitution since his days in the Idaho House.

And that completes my list of endorsements. I look forward to receiving your comments in response.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

Idaho has a contested race for the Supreme Court this month – but the lack of attention this very important race has received is more than surprising: It is actually part of the plan.

Many in Idaho’s “ruling class” prefer to be in charge of the Supreme Court, despite the fact that the Idaho Constitution provides us, the People, with sole authority for deciding who should sit on the state’s highest court. The last thing these elites want is a high-profile election contest in which candidates are fully scrutinized by the public.

Justice Joel Horton is the pseudo-incumbent in this race. He was appointed by Governor Otter after the duly-elected incumbent resigned early in order to manipulate the choices presented to the public at the May 27th Primary. A select panel chose Horton. The masses were left to wonder who this guy was – and whether he would prove a blessing or curse.

We can thank John Bradbury, his challenger, for at least forcing the issue, for getting some information out to voters.

Both candidates responded to the Gem State Voter Guide – organized by Bryan Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance and co-sponsored by this organization — and we can now offer you some idea as to who these people are.

The two candidates are separated by their identification with U.S. Supreme Court justices. Both were asked which current Justice “most reflects your judicial philosophy”. Incumbent Justice Joel Horton named Antonin Scalia.

The challenger, Lewiston Judge John Bradbury, identified (former) Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. No person in modern times has done more damage to families and preborn children than former justice Sandra Day O’Connor. She has concocted more bizarre case law to defend legalized abortion than any member of the court. Presumably candidate Bradbury is well familiar with her activism and finds her elitist notions of the judiciary to be quite appealing.

This may not be much information, but it might be all we get.

The Board of Idaho Chooses Life has not made a formal endorsement in this race – but it seems clear that John Bradbury should be disqualified by Idaho voters in the May 27th Primary.

There are other interesting responses by these gentlemen that are worth your scrutiny: Gemstate Voter Guide

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

We often hear that divorce and unwed childbirths are nobody’s business, and especially that the government should just keep its nose out of such matters.

And perhaps those who make such an argument would have a point if family fragmentation imposed no impact on society at large, and if public resources did not have to be allocated to mitigate that impact.

But, as a recent report produced by the Institute for American Values reveals, family fragmentation most definitely is the government’s business, since it costs government at all levels $112 billion a year (over $1 trillion each decade) to deal with the severe consequences of marital breakups and out-of-wedlock births.

(Currently, more than 25% of white babies are born out of wedlock, as are 46 percent of Hispanic babies and an astonishing 69 percent of African-American babies. Divorce rates remain high today compared to rates prior to 1970, and Idaho’s divorce rate is more than 40% higher than the national average.)

These costs arise as lawmakers are forced to spend taxpayer funds to cope with poverty, crime, and educational challenges linked to the breakdown in the nuclear family. Further, government loses revenue because of lower levels of taxes paid by individuals who earn less as adults because they have grown up in poverty.

When parents divorce or fail to marry in the first place, their children suffer from an increased risk of poverty, mental illness, juvenile delinquency (due to loss of family stability and parental supervision), sexual abuse, substance abuse, educational failure and teen pregnancy.

The social costs of divorce and unwed childbearing are enormous, as lawmakers must grapple with higher rates of crime, drug abuse, illness, welfare expenditures, remedial education programs, day-care subsidies, child-support collection costs, and the increased cost of foster care and child protection services.

We must not think Idaho is immune from these pressures. The study indicates that Idaho taxpayers must spend $127 million a year to deal with family fragmentation right here in the Gem State, including an impact of $60 million on the criminal justice system alone.

Foregone revenue, Medicaid, SCHIP and child welfare costs make up the other $57 million.

A single-parent household headed by a female is the greatest single predictor of poverty, while at the same time, marriage has been proven to be the greatest single poverty-reducing mechanism in society.

In fact, almost all of the increase in poverty observed among divorced mothers is traceable directly to the divorce. Less than one percent of women and children live in poverty if their first marriage is intact, while 24 percent of divorced women with children are living in poverty.

This study estimates that if marriage would reduce the poverty rate among female-headed households by a reasonably expected amount, we could reduce the number of Idaho children living in poverty by almost 33 percent, and reduce the overall poverty rate in the state by 30 percent. (Some estimates in the literature suggest reductions of 65-80 percent.)

In other words, the most compassionate thing we can do for Idaho’s women and children is to strengthen the institution of marriage.

Eliminating unilateral “no-fault” divorce in favor of “mutual consent” divorce would be one step in this direction. It would raise the bar for the institution of marriage in Idaho, as it would send the message to Idahoans that we take marriage seriously in this state, and we will expect you to honor the sacred commitment you make in marriage just as we expect you to honor much lesser commitments, such as the commitment you make when you take out a mortgage on your house or lease a car.

“Mutual consent” divorce would also give “innocent” victims of an unwanted divorce some legal protection and bargaining power in the dissolution process, whereas currently they have none. And it would minimize government intrusion into family breakups, since, in a mutual consent divorce, these matters would be worked out between the couple before they ever come into court.

When “no fault” divorce was added to Idaho code (in 1970), marriage became the only social contract in which the state guarantees a legal victory to the individual who wants to break a contract without cause. Certainly we can and must do better.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

The Board of Idaho Chooses Life has been busy researching candidate records and collecting questionnaires from candidates across the state. Based upon legislative records, a number of good people have already won endorsement, and a second round of endorsement decisions is scheduled for this weekend.

With the Primary Election coming fast (May 27th), we will need to be in a position to advise pro-Life voters across Idaho on who they can trust to defend our families and our future.

Board policies have developed over the years in response to this heavy responsibility.

We rely heavily upon proven public records, primarily voting history, when dealing with incumbent legislators. Bill sponsorship, public statements and personal history are also given serious consideration.

For candidates running without the benefit of a legislative voting record, we turn to an extensive survey on key pro-Life questions – sixteen in all. The survey leaves plenty of opportunity for candidates to express their heart when it comes to protecting the sanctity of human life.

We continue to be driven by the firm conviction that no person is qualified to hold public power over the community who does not have a deep regard for the value of each human being.

We ask for your prayers and support as we move forward through this difficult and sometimes controversial process. And may the Lord carry us to victories next month that allow us to move forward with rebuilding a Culture of Life in Idaho.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

What strange times we live in. The Yale Daily News reported that a student at that once prestigious campus produced video recordings of self-induced abortions as part of her senior art project. The young woman claimed that she had repeatedly impregnated herself using donated sperm over the past year – so she could film numerous self-abortions in her bathtub using various herbal abortifacients.

Once she presented her video to the Senior Art Project Forum – revulsion spread across the campus, resulting in a newspaper story by the student paper. In an interview, Ms. Shvarts claimed that her “performance art” was designed to encourage debate about the relationship between art and the human body.

Campus officials decided to investigate and, when confronted, Aliza Shvarts claimed that it was all just an elaborate hoax.

Probably so. Yet the thinking and moral numbness behind this dark episode is obviously disturbing. How could an otherwise intelligent young woman show such disregard for the human destruction and suffering involved in abortion?

The truth is, such sociopathic behavior must be expected in a culture which denies the humanity of preborn children for the sake of convenience. Planned Parenthood’s propaganda campaign – in which human beings are just “blobs of tissue” – has taken hold.

Can the masters of the culture be so certain that they can keep the beast contained?

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

The Independent newspaper (London) ran a disturbing story yesterday about the scientific “progress” being made in cloning techniques.

A new procedure has been developed by Dr. Robert Lanza of the American-based Advanced Cell Technology which makes the successful cloning of humans easier and more likely. The technique re-programs skin cells into a pre-embryonic state; this was the process used in the dramatic breakthrough announced last year in which embryonic stem cells were manufactured without the destruction of a human embryo.

One scientist is quoted by the Independent as arguing that this development means we almost certainly have the scientific methodology to produce a human child.

Dr. Lanza himself expresses ethical concerns:

“It raises the same issues as reproductive cloning … whereby anyone, young or old, fertile or infertile, straight or gay can pass on their genes to a child by using just a few skin cells.”

Recent experiments on mice have produced offspring 100% genetically identical to the donor.

Dr. Lanza went on to observe that those mouse experiments demonstrate how easily the technology could be applied to produce or chimera babies. Such cloning techniques are not illegal in many places because the law has not kept pace with scientific developments.

We may need to bring this whole matter to the attention of the Idaho Legislature in the near future, as well as members of Idaho’s congressional delegation.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.