Never mind the facts regarding the immeasurably complex issue.  This reporter has an opinion and she's going to tailor her article around it.  

Now, in fairness, I don't know Kim Kozlowski and I can not and will not say that the striking bias exhibited in today's article was intentional.  She may very well have not realized what she was doing.  But I will take to task the editor who let this piece go to print.  At the best it was sloppy journalism.  At the worst you've got an author with an agenda.  Neither one is a good thing.

My initial inclination was to go ahead and blog a quick rebuttal to the "article" to point out a few facts that the author chose to overlook.  Items like, say, the hundreds of cures and treatments that have come as a result of research on adult and cord blood stem cells, cells that are available and obtainable without the destruction of an embryo.  (Check out this link for a peer reviewed list of 179 of them, the tip of the iceberg.)  

To point out, for example, that embryonic stem cell research has generated zero cures and treatments.

To point out that while a prohibition against embryonic stem cell research may very well prevent Michigan from becoming the economic capital of the embryonic stem cell research movement it in no way prohibits us from becoming the economic capital of the adult and cord blood stem cell research movement, rendering the economic argument upon which the article was based completely and 100% moot to begin with.

Or to point out, paragraph by paragraph that her sentence structure, choice of nouns and adjectives, use of quotes and omission of key pieces of information results in a nothing more than a propaganda piece for her side of the debate.

Things like that.

But as I reread the article it became clear that the bias that went into it's composition was so deep-seeded, so melded to the entire article, that such a refutation would be silly.  It needed something more.  

What Kim Kozlowski completely ignores, even when she highlights opposition to embryonic stem cell research, is the "why."  Why is this a controversial issue?  Why does it engender strong feelings?  Why do the Catholic Church, Right to Life, Baptists for Life and countless other groups oppose it?

It isn't because they're mean.  It isn't because they want people to be sick.  It isn't because they're stuck in the stone age.  It's because an embryo is a form of human life, different from you and me only in age, geography and developmental opportunity.

That flew right over Kozlowski's head and what came about as a result was one of the most comprehensively biased reports I've read in my life.