Here's a paragraph of note in the Star article:
The initiative, labeled Amendment 2, would protect all stem-cell research in Missouri that is now allowed under federal law, and it would prohibit any attempts to implant cloned cells into a woman's uterus in an attempt to give birth to a baby. It was certified for the Nov. 7 ballot last week.
How do "cloned cells" implant in a woman's uterus and develop into baby? I didn't know that any random cloned cells could just be implanted and then develop into a baby? It seems rather obvious that the "cloned cells" in question would actually have to be a cloned human embryo.
While the Kansas City Star is refusing to use honest language, the St. Louis Dispatch's article on this event cites the arguments of those opposed to this amendment and why they recognize that somatic cell nuclear transfer is cloning.
Here's the press release about the rally from those in favor of human cloning for research. It includes this breathtakingly dishonest quote from Bill Neaves:
"We recognize the overwhelming evidence that early stem cells offer the best prospect of finding cures for hundreds of thousands of Missourians who suffer from a broad range of degenerative diseases and debilitating injuries," Dr. Neaves said.
The overwhelmingly evidence? The best prospect?
I think I feel the worst for that poor ten-year-old boy with juvenile diabetes who has probably been told something like, "Austin, if we can pass this amendment then we'll be able to cure your diabetes and cure the diabetes of other children who suffer like you."