Missouri has been trying to pass a tax hike on cigarettes for a very long time. This year, the state will hold yet another vote on Prop B that will raise taxes significantly on cigarettes with the goal of lowering the state’s high number of smokers (26% of the state’s population.) The money collected through the tax hike will be invested into education and research.
So far the story sounds quite boring. But here is where the hilarity begins. There is an organization called Missouri Right to Life. As you can guess from its name, this is an anti-choice group that “opposes the killing of innocent human life at any stage, even the single cell stage.”
Missouri Right to Life also opposes the state’s anti-smoking measures. Apparently, the killing of innocent human life through smoking doesn’t bother the group a whole lot. For some bizarre reason, the organization decided that the money the state of Missouri gains from this tax hike will not be invested into education and research and will be diverted to cloning instead. Cloning is prohibited in Missouri, but who cares? Missouri Right to Life, which would be more aptly called “Missouri Right to Die of Lung Cancer”, still insists that the anti-smoking bill is introduced to promote cloning.
The leaps of logic that religious fanatics are capable of are truly bizarre.
P.S. I personally oppose the special tax rates on cigarettes in any society that doesn’t offer free comprehensive state health insurance to every citizen. This isn’t the point of the post, though. The post is about the hypocrisy of anti-choice religious fanatics.
Clarissa's Blog 
I found a typo towards the end of the third paragraph: “Missouri Right to Die of Ling Cancer” should probably be “Missouri Right to Die of Lung Cancer.”
LikeLike
Ah, thank you!
LikeLike
Smoking has been linked to lingual cancer also.
LikeLike
Here in Canada, one of the warning labels on cigarette packages (or were on them when I handled them as part of a job) says “Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby.” You would think that anti-choice organizations would be all for such a tax.
BTW, would you please explain why you “personally oppose [cigarette taxes] in any society that doesn’t offer free comprehensive state health insurance to every citizen”? I’m all for increasing taxes on goods and services that have negative externalities.
LikeLike
“Here in Canada, one of the warning labels on cigarette packages (or were on them when I handled them as part of a job) says “Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby.” You would think that anti-choice organizations would be all for such a tax.”
– GOOD point!
“BTW, would you please explain why you “personally oppose [cigarette taxes] in any society that doesn’t offer free comprehensive state health insurance to every citizen”? I’m all for increasing taxes on goods and services that have negative externalities.”
– I believe it isn’t anybody’s business to judge what’s bad for me unless they are paying for the consequences.
LikeLike
My objection to “sin taxes” is that they encourage the idea that taxes aren’t everyone’s business, but something unpopular subpopulations (such as smokers) can be targeted with. Raising regular taxes is less politically feasible, but making education (or health care, or something else that affects everyone) financially dependent on some “vice” industry such as alcohol, tobacco, firearms, gaming, legalized marijuana, etc. is to back ourselves into a corner of sorts.
LikeLike
What I don’t understand is why a group that’s convinced that a single cell is a person would be opposed to Human cloning. Seriously, if a zygote is a person because it might one day turn in to one, then surely every single nucleated cell in a human body is a person because it has the potential, through the act of cloning, to become the basis of a Human being.
LikeLike
They have a weird convoluted explanation for this that I have not been able to understand. My explanation is that they are terrified that the patriarchal marriage structure will be put in peril in some way.
LikeLike
I find n8chz’s explanation better. But regarding “patriarchal marriage structure [being] put in peril”, I think this provides a better explanation for wingnuts’ and the religious wrong’s opposition to government funded daycare and parental leave: I read somewhere that they’re afraid (amongst other reasons) that those will help show that egalitarian marriages are better than hierarchical patriarchal ones, therefore destroying the latter.
LikeLike
“they’re afraid (amongst other reasons) that those will help show that egalitarian marriages are better than hierarchical patriarchal ones, therefore destroying the latter.”
– This makes a lot of sense.
LikeLike
I think their worry is that cloning, stem cell research, and possibly other processes will “create demand” for byproducts of abortion, and therefore constitute some sort of incentive to do more abortions.
I’m not opposed in principle to human cloning, but that’s assuming they work the bugs out. Until then, even animal cloning may be ethically suspect on cruelty grounds.
LikeLike
Latest anti choice argument. Last night, Indiana Republican candate Richard Murdock stated during an election debate that rape is God’s will so an abortion is only acceptable if the mother’s life is in danger.
LikeLike
There was this other Republican creep recently who claimed that the danger to woman’s life exception was a Liberal crock because that never happened in real life.
And yet there are people who want to vote for them.
LikeLike
I’m really confused by this.. because if you read the bill in full text section 12 says “None of the funds collected, distributed, or allocated pursuant to this section shall be expended, paid or granted to or on behalf of existing or proposed activities, programs, or initiatives that involve abortion services, including performing, inducing, or assisting with abortions, as defined in section 188.015, RSMo, or encouraging patients to have abortions, referring patients for abortions not necessary to save the life of the mother, or development of drugs, chemicals, or devices intended to be used to induce an abortion.”
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2012ballot/PropB.asp
do people just not read the bill? what’s happening?!
LikeLike
These are crazy people. They will see whatever they want to see.
LikeLike