Epidermis Lobby Planning to Halt Skin Cell Harvest for Stem Cell Creation

One of Washington's most powerful lobbies is already gearing up to stop skin cell harvesting in its tracks. As news broke today that embryos may no longer be essential to creating stem cells, the Epidermis lobby bristled at the notion that "ordinary skin cells" might take their place.

"As a representative of the Epidermis lobby," a representative said today "I am appalled at this attempt to subvert the American way of life. I speak for all of the Epidermis. We are not just a cluster of people - we are a lobby all our own, covering much more surface area than any of the other lobbies. And we demand to be heard."

Though members of the Epidermis are usually short-lived, with a turnaround time on average of only thirty-five days, new members seem to spring up almost immediately in their place, leaving the Epidermis a vital body in Washington.

"We cannot stand by while the skin cells of good American citizens are harvested willy-nilly," said Craig Harriman, Vice Chair of Epidermis. "On that note, I must resign and cede the seat of Vice Chair to Leslie Oates." "Thank you," said Vice Chair Oates.

The controversy around the use of skin cells as potential stem cells is many-fold. Says an official Epidermis pamphlet "These are the building blocks of life. What does it say when we scrape off a sample and try and bastardize nature's will by creating new building blocks? Are we not happy in our own skin?"

Says Colin Friels, research scientist "Skin cells aren't life. They are merely a part of life." Epidermis' official response: "Where does life truly begin? Whether it's one cell or a million, it's all life." Friels' response: "No."

Absence of Evidence...

So apparently technicalities and the rule of law outweigh common sense. It's like the government appointees that control this huge part of our lives are playing some kind of game where "touch blue, make it true" actually applies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/washington/16cnd-nsa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Because the evidence - the word universally being used to describe the information submitted to a lower court, since that's what it is - submitted about domestic wiretapping falls under the "State Secrets" privelege, it can no longer be considered admissable in court.

Even though we KNOW the program exists and has been fully admitted to, it can't be constitutional because it technically never happened. Even though it did.

So now this particular domestic wiretapping program might never be declared unconstitutional, despite the wide agreement that domestic wiretapping as a concept is unconstitutional. I thought these technicalities were there to protect our civil liberties, first and foremost. Apparently rights are a privelege.