52 replies to this topic

[Bruce Klein]

Check The ScoreBoard here:
http://imminst.org/f...t=0

[Mind]

Here is a story from February 7th about this issue. It appeared at the website AZcentral.com
I just thought I would post it in order to see what information the media has been digging up.

Here is the text:

Bill urges state oversight of cryonics
advertisement

Peter Corbett
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 7, 2004 12:00 AM


A bill launched Friday calls for Arizona to oversee cryonics facilities such as Alcor, the Scottsdale firm that drew national attention last year over its handling of baseball legend Ted Williams' frozen remains.

Rep. Bob Stump, R-Peoria, whose father operated a mortuary, said the legislation is aimed at protecting consumers.

"Their doors are closed to us now," Stump said. "We have no way of reassuring families and the public that their loved one's remains are being treated with the utmost care and dignity."

Stump said 50 lawmakers have signed on as co-sponsors.

The Alcor Life Extension Foundation, the nation's largest cryonics facility with nearly 60 frozen bodies and severed heads, is largely unregulated by the state. It does not fall under the category of funeral home or cemetery.

Alcor's operation is regulated by federal and state rules that control how bodies and organs are donated for medical and research purposes.

Last month, the Cryonics Institute, the nation's other large cryonics facility, got a cemetery license to settle a dispute with Michigan authorities over its operation.

Rudy Thomas, director of the Arizona Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers, said regulation is needed to ensure that cryonics firms provide consumers with full disclosure of their methods and so corpses are handled in a humane way.

Last summer, a former Alcor executive said Williams' head was severed in July 2002 in a gruesome procedure using a hammer and chisel. That sparked concerns from the funeral industry and lawmakers.

"That would be mutilation if it was done that way," Thomas said.

Barry Aarons, a lobbyist representing Alcor, dismissed allegations that Alcor has mishandled the bodies of any of its patients and questioned the need for state oversight.

"I need the funeral people to tell us why there is a need," he said. "What's the urgency of it?"

Alcor is engaged in cutting-edge medical and scientific research, Aarons said, dismissing the skeptics who do not believe science will ever be able to restore life to Alcor's patients.

"Anything is possible in this day and age," Aarons said. But he acknowledged he has not signed up for cryonics preservation.

Stump said his bill does not address the viability of cryonics.

Alcor has been at the center of controversy surrounding the legitimacy of storing bodies in liquid nitrogen for reanimation in the future. The issue intensified after Williams, the Boston Red Sox legend, was decapitated and frozen at Alcor amid a family dispute over the disposition of his remains.

Alcor will not confirm that Williams is frozen at its Scottsdale Airpark warehouse. But former Chief Operating Officer Larry Johnson, who resigned in August, made headlines when he alleged that Alcor mishandled Williams' body and that the baseball great never signed a contract to be preserved at Alcor.

[Mind]

Besides contacting the state legislators on the board, I called a local TV station and told them about the "brewing controversy". I gave them some background info and they said they would "look into it". I talked to KPHO Channel 5. I figured press coverage may force Stump and the sponsors to be more clear and open about the bill and its wording and what its affect might be on Alcor.

Was this a good idea? Should I contact any other media in the area?

[bgwowk]

A question was raised regarding the section of bill HB 2637 (the bill attacking Alcor) that reads:

Sec. 4. Title 36, chapter 7, article 3, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 36-851, to read:

36-851. Applicability; definition

A. THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON OR ENTITY THAT CHARGES A FEE FOR THE STORAGE OF A DEAD HUMAN BODY OR REMAINS OF A DEAD HUMAN BODY FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS.

This bill adds and amends several parts of the Arizona Revised Statutes (laws of the State of Arizona). It does so in four parts. "Sec. 4" means the 4th action of the bill. This action refers to an amendment of "Title 26, chapter 7, article 3," which is the Arizona Anatomical Gift Act (AAGA). The AAGA is Arizona's particular implementation of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) which is implemented in some form in almost all 50 states as a mechanism for people to donate their tissues, organs, or body for medical or scientific uses. Sec. 4 of this bill amends the AAGA to prevent Alcor from operating under it.

Alcor has used the UAGA and AAGA as the legal mechanism for taking posession of cryonics patients for decades. It completely bypasses funeral regulations, and has numerous other advantages, some of which are explained by Steve Bridge in his article

http://www.alcor.org...egalstatus.html

It is my understanding that one of the reasons why CI succumbed to funeral regulation in Michigan is that they were not using the UAGA to do cryonics.

Bill HB 2637's revocation of Alcor's ability to use the UAGA and AAGA shows what an insidious and concerted attack on cryonics this is.

---Brian Wowk

[thefirstimmortal]

Besides contacting the state legislators on the board, I called a local TV station and told them about the "brewing controversy". I gave them some background info and they said they would "look into it". I talked to KPHO Channel 5. I figured press coverage may force Stump and the sponsors to be more clear and open about the bill and its wording and what its affect might be on Alcor.

Was this a good idea? Should I contact any other media in the area?

That was a great idea, politicians fear bad press.

[thefirstimmortal]

Bill HB 2637's revocation of Alcor's ability to use the UAGA and AAGA shows what an insidious and concerted attack on cryonics this is.

---Brian Wowk

Great post Brian, could you walk me through all of the bills pitfalls and effects, and what parts of the process that it inhibits?

[thefirstimmortal]

Thanks for the Article Mind. I have a mem from something I read years ago that stuck in my head, I didn't think I would ever get to use it.


Sent to all Legislators
Quotes from The Arizona Republic Peter Corbett Article Feb. 7, 2004

"Rep. Bob Stump, R-Peoria, whose father operated a mortuary, said the legislation is aimed at protecting consumers."

"Their doors are closed to us now," Stump said. "We have no way of reassuring families and the public that their loved one's remains are being treated with the utmost care and dignity."


It seems ironic that Bob Stump, who's father operated a mortuary, would sponsor such a bill based on the claim that he is concerened about human remains being treated with the "utmost care and dignity." Cryonics after all deals with the preservation of human remains via a freezing process.

I think a better example of a "lack of dignity" is, you take a guy and then you haul him off to a place where you cut him open and fill him up with formaldehyde, causing enormous structural cell disruption, and then you wrap him up like so much garbage and bury him, and he molds and rots, and microorganisms eat him up, and worms and insects pour into him, and he disappears forever. That's lacks dignity. Or you take somebody and you put him in a crematorium and you listen, and after about fifteen or twenty minutes at seventeen hundred degrees Fahrenheit, you hear this Pop. That's his head blowing up because the water's boiling inside his head at a rate so fast that it can't escape, and so the head explodes. That's lacks dignity.

Live Long and Well
William Constitution O'Rights

[thefirstimmortal]

RPst

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution will be implicated if the government bans Cryonics. Cryonics is a means to immortality, as such, it is clearly an exercise of a Religious nature.

One cannot get more basic in First Amendment law than to quote the First Amendment itself. It reads, in its entirety:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That is it. But these forty-five words are anything but simple in their application to numberless difficult situations. Under our system of judicial interpretation, the courts have fleshed out the meaning of this text in a bewildering variety of specific contexts. For our purposes, we need to use these words to protect Cryonics. We need to tackle the knotty First Amendment puzzles such as the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause. Focusing only on that small portion of this short constitutional amendment that pertains to religion, the First Amendment distills down to this: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The words seem very clear and the meaning plain and unmistakable. If the text literally meant what it says, any statute restricting, let alone banning cryonics, would be invalid. But it is not that simple, and it never has been.

We need to explore the legal issues implicated by the impulse to ban cryonics, as such a ban would inadvertently undermine our most personal constitutional rights. The law, especially constitutional law, is an aspect of the cryonics controversy that has never been fully analyzed.

If we are to protect our interest in Cryonics, we are going to need at least some background on First Amendment law as it relates to the Free Exercise Clause. This will be necessary to understand the constitutional issues regarding any possible ban or restriction on Cryonics. Any one who has not enjoyed the dubious benefit of attending law school may be surprised to learn that obtaining the answer to First Amendment questions is not as simple as looking it up in some cookbook-like, well-indexed reference book. Each case is different, developed and decided within the context of a particular place or jurisdiction, at a particular point in time, with its own unique facts and its own individual judge or judges.

Within our common law legal system, rulings from past cases will influence subsequent cases, either as controlling or persuasive authority. In a field as difficult as the First Amendment, there may be ample precedent to enable any particular court to rule one way or another on the issue of Cryonics if we employ the Free Exercise Clause.

What might appear to be the most obvious, well-established mode of analysis is not necessarily the way any given court will deal with a specific First Amendment issue. Even when the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on a certain factual and legal issue, expert legal commentators can disagree as to the true meaning of the Court’s holding, for many years to come, partially because numerous cases have multiple opinions, including majority or plurality opinions, concurrences, opinions that concur in part and dissent in part, and outright dissents. Even within each opinion, there can be disputes as to whether any phrase or sentence is actually part of the Court’s holding and thus entitled to precedential effect, or merely dicta-surplusage, explanatory text, or additional judicial rumination that is not properly deemed to be of controlling import. Indeed, numerous books and countless law review articles have been devoted to the subject of the First Amendment and its myriad intricacies.

There is a lengthy list of situations in which the seemingly absolutist language of the First Amendment has been held to be subject to exceptions allowing governmental restriction and regulation, and even criminal sanction. There is also a diversity of views as to the extent to which the intent of the Framers of the Constitution and those who actually drafted and approved the First Amendment should govern our current interpretation of it.

Legal scholars, lawyers, and judges at all levels disagree even on the underlying purpose of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause. If we knew the core theory, the bedrock foundation, the animating principle, the central philosophy behind the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, it would assist us in determining how it applies to any particular set of facts, and it would help us to ensure that our body of case law coalesces around a consistent, unifying theme.

It is possible to find support, sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit, for theories in the many Supreme Court cases explicating the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, to say nothing of the numerous decisions from the various federal circuit courts, district courts, and state courts. We can also create variations on these themes and attempt to combine them, make our own spin on how the First Amendment should be read. The We can do this because it's a fact that experienced, illustrious legal experts still dispute these theories. We need to wade through the often eccentric, labyrinthine, and baffling First Amendment jurisprudence that we must amass for our protection.

[bgwowk]

thefirstimmortal wrote:

That was a great idea, politicians fear bad press.

And now they've got it. The online edition of Reason magazine just came out with this op-ed piece:

http://www.reason.co.../rb022504.shtml

which begins with

"Arizona's state legislature is about to consider one of the silliest pieces of "consumer protection" legislation ever devised."

Every letter now sent to legislators can be prefaced with that quote. In fact, maybe someone here can send another round of email to the dozen committee members listed at

http://www.alcor.org...ativealert.html

just for the purpose of bringing the Reason piece and that quote to their attention. Possible subject lines: "Reason magazine Opposes HB 2637" or, more accurately, "Reason magazine calls HB 2637 'silly'"

If anyone decides to follow through with this, please post your intention here so that the legislators don't get spammed by multiple emails with this same subject. Thanks.

---Brian Wowk

[thefirstimmortal]

If anyone decides to follow through with this, please post your intention here so that the legislators don't get spammed by multiple emails with this same subject.  Thanks.

---Brian Wowk

That would be me. By the way, every e-mail is sent to every legislator, not just the Health committee members. I like to increase the odds that someone will take our side.

Be right back
and thank you Brian

[thefirstimmortal]

Heading

"Reason magazine Opposes HB 2637" Bob Stump/Bad Press

You know that's kryptonite to a politician. Was that your effort Brian, or Mind, or Randy's? I had Randy work on getting press for this issue.

[Omnido]

*Sigh*

Im surprised that everyone else is surprised.
As if those of us who sit on the leadership of the ImmInst Council did not forsee that government would ultimately be the thorn in the side of advancement.

You think this was a serious issue? Well I got news folks, it will only get worse.
Eventually, there will be no such thing as seperation from the state or government, and all our endeavors will be monitored as well as manipulated and controlled by our so called "Rule of, by, and For the people".

Im still silently waiting for that venture capitalist who isnt a cuthroat manipulative SOB to step forward, even if in the shadows, and help bring our civilization out of the darkness that will probably unfold over the next few decades.

This incident with Alcor, I fear, is only the beginning.

[thefirstimmortal]

*Sigh*

Im surprised that everyone else is surprised.
As if those of us who sit on the leadership of the ImmInst Council did not forsee that government would ultimately be the thorn in the side of advancement.

*Deeper Sigh*
I'm surprised that you are surprised that everyone else is surprised.
(That tomorrow is today)

Posted: Jan 5, 2004 at Immortality Institute prior to the "Stump Bill".

My ability to foretell the future has been shaky ever since my Magic Crystal-Ball helped me produce a post I've dubbed "Can't you just see it now."

Posted shortly a few months before CI's Cryonics ban, I posted the following;

"Can't you just see it now, some legal action relating to cryonics or something. Or some other life and death issue."

William Constitution O'Rights, BJ Klein, Lazarus Long, and Bob Drake
Defendants
Vs.
United States of America....

Shaky or not, let's try to see through the looking glass more clearly.

In the future modern science will rip gaping holes in the realm of the impossible and modern law will struggle to keep pace. Revolutionary advancements in science will threaten ancient notions of immortality. Instead of accommodating the new realities, there will be powerful people, chiefly political and religious leaders, who will bend the law into a reactive, even reactionary force in the path of Cryonics. Religious and political leaders on the global stage, from popes to presidents, will unite to demand an end to cryonics.

The Ted Williams' story shocked people all over America and spawned a frenzy of political and legal action. The facts and the science of cryonics capabilities were swiftly lost in the dust cloud stirred up by people rushing to do something, anything, to stop cryonics.

The use of the science and technology of cryonics have produced some startling headlines and emotional reactions, and in the future it may ignite a firestorm of denunciations and vows to ban cryonics permanently, under all circumstances and for all purposes. Perhaps the president of the United States, the pope, numerous senators and members of Congress of both major political parties, and hosts of world leaders will speak with virtually one voice in decrying the freezing of humans, irrespective of the potential benefits that could be realized.

When the people speak with one voice it is often out of pure prejudice. Fear and misunderstanding may spawn extreme, and extremely vocal, opposition to cryonics. If that comes to pass, the opposition will take root in the form of several highly restrictive state laws and threaten to become a federal ban as well.

There is little doudt that at least some of the fuel that will ignite the legal opposition to scientific forays into the frontiers of immortality is the strong primeval sense that we should not be allowed to “play God.” This belief has been both explicitly and implicitly at the core of much of the resistance to most scientific advances. Fundamentally, the idea is that our ability to perform certain tasks should not be coterminous with the legality of doing so, at least with regard to living things. There is a belief, usually implicitly and often explicitly religious in origin, that places some life-related areas of medical and scientific endeavor in the category of taboo, top-sacred, forbidden mystical practices reserved exclusively unto deity. Some people are afraid that human attempts to “play God” are fraught with overwhelming peril. The powerful message and visceral impact from these fantasies is clear, when we meddle in the secrets of life, we risk unleashing the anger of God.

Popular opposition to cryonics may be formidable enough in its own right, but it may be dwarfed by legal opposition. During this, the dawn of the cryonics age, our government may hastily act to place severe restrictions, including outright bans on cryonics and the degree of unanimity in opposition to cryonics may be astounding, possibly uniting liberal and conservative, pro-life and pro-choice, and secular and religious people of various persuasions.

Many of the reasons that will be marshaled in opposition to cryonics, are directly rooted in religious, ethical, or moral beliefs that this is just something people should not do. Whether couched in terms to the effect that our efforts are tantamount to “playing God” and should be reserved for God alone, or phrased in less overtly religious language, this type of argument represents deep personal convictions. The people who hold these beliefs are convinced of the fundamental correctness of their position, and both the people and the sincerity of their beliefs are entitled to great respect. We however hold opposing beliefs, and our beliefs represent our deeply held personal convictions, and are entitled to equal recognition.

Passion has its place, but not to the exclusion of logic, reality, and the rule of law. We need to explore the wisdom of the legal measures already taken within the United States, particularly we need to address possible anti-cryonic legislation before it is even fully drafted.

To the extent anti-cryonic sentiment is rooted in religious doctrine, there are important First Amendment concerns implicated in any marriage of religion and state-sponsored legal action. Religion-based belief simply cannot be permitted to manifest itself in a ban of cryonics. There are doctrinal strands that tie cryonics to the "free-exercise" clause of the First Amendment.

Of course the sentiment of the opposition is often not based on any clearly articulated principles. Opponents of cryonics simply refer to the putative immorality of it, as if it were intuitively obvious to everyone, and sometimes offer by way of explanation something on the order of “It just seems wrong.” Fortunately for us, such vague, emotion-rooted, gut-level aversion is a poor foundation on which to build a set of legal requirements or arguments. However the same type of sincerely held yet poorly defined abhorrence has led, in the America of not so long ago, to antimiscegenation laws, legal ownership of and commerce in slaves, legally sanctioned racial segregation, denial of equal rights to African Americans, denial of suffrage to women, and many other grave injustices.

We need to examine cryonics in a new light, one that relates to our rights and liberties. We need to seek an appropriate, rational, and constitutionally sound course of action for a defense. We need to meet any new challenges proactively. We need to look through this window into the future whereby today’s bans on cryonics form the foundation for tomorrow’s denial of our very lives. That future does not have to be. It is the purpose, the very essence of this organisation that we look into the future and change the path we are on, before that tomorrow becomes today.

Live Long and Well
Rev. William C. O'Rights
The First Immortal

[Mind]

What about this as a legal angle to defeat or reform the Stump Bill:

Putting the cryonics industry under the regulatory oversight of the Funeral Board would be akin to giving Microsoft regulatory oversight over Apple. They are competitors for business. It cannot be legal to give one industry competitor regulatory contol over another. There must be some law against this.

[Bruce Klein]

my email...

Dear Rep (..)

Thank you for representing the state of Arizona and for sacrificing a part of your life for the good of public service. While you have already received numerous emails concerning HB 2637, I hope you consider the following before making your final decision.

I am affiliated with the following organizations:

1. Alcor Life Extension Foundation – Member, http://www.alcor.org
2. Immortality Institute – Chairman, http://www.imminst.org
3. World Transhumanist Association – Board Member, http://www.transhumanism.org

However, I contact you now only as a concerned individual.

HB 2637 is being represented as a consumer protection bill. Yet, Alcor is already regulated under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA).

Interestingly, Rudy Thomas, Arizona Funeral Board Director, to whom this bill would give oversight, has made the following statements, "There's no difference between cryonics and cremation," (Arizona Capitol Times, 23 Sept 2003) and "These companies need to be regulated or deregulated out of business" (New York Times, 14 Oct 2003).

I’m aquatinted with many of Alcor’s employees and members. All are good, concerned citizens. As an Alcor customer myself, I have been thoroughly impressed by their professionalism and openness. Alcor is a respectable scientific organization.

Thank you again for your consideration in voting down HB 2637 and in allowing Alcor to continue their scientific work in Arizona.

Regards,
Bruce Klein

[gjbloom]

Assuming the vote goes against HB 2637 tomorrow, I recommend we put together draft language for a bill that will provide a solid foundation of support for cryonics within Arizona, and see if Ms. Lopez is willing to introduce it. Once there is oversight for the cryonics industry, opponents will have to not only find another "legitimate" reason to legislate against it, such legislation would also need to justify removing or circumventing the existing regulatory statutes.

I also agree somewhat with Mr. Stump (let's pause a moment for your knee to stop twitching...) that oversight of the industry is probably appropriate. I believe Alcor takes great pains to operate as responsibly as possible, but if cryonics should start to appear fashionable/profitable, we could see ads for "Billy-Bob's Cryonics Emporium, where the only thing lower than our prices is the temperature of our basement!". Having responsible fiduciary and operational oversight could prevent irresponsible competition in this delicate field.

Failing that, it may be that the only protection for cryonics is through the establishment of an organized religion that centers on immortality and the use of cryonics as the only current path toward that goal. That would of course paint cryonics with yet another coat of whacko-varnish, and move it further from mainstream consideration and acceptance. sigh...

[thefirstimmortal]

What about this as a legal angle to defeat or reform the Stump Bill:

Putting the cryonics industry under the regulatory oversight of the Funeral Board would be akin to giving Microsoft regulatory oversight over Apple. They are competitors for business. It cannot be legal to give one industry competitor regulatory contol over another. There must be some law against this.

Let me start by saying that I'm glad you're thinking of other angles, that's always good, and I don't want to discourage that.

The problem I see with the argument is that starts with the premise that regulation isn't properly being done, that's too close to saying yes to regulation, but do it the right way (which we know the government will never do it the right way). When looking to overturn any law, I always look to the Constitution and Bill of Rights first to see if there are strong fundamental battles that can be waged. I still think our strongest defense is the religious argument.

I understand that many don't like the religious route, we have many athiest in our ranks, we also have many scientist amoung us who don't want to stand too close to the religious idea but after spending two weeks looking for a way to make a scientific argument, I failed. We need to make the strong arguments, the ones that will kill laws like Stump's.

There are other defenses to this law. Whether or not the the statute can be used to be made an instrument of arbitrary suppression, whether or not it is unconstitutionally Vague. And a relatively new expression has found its way into First Amendment cases, whether or not the statute is unconstitutional because it provides a "chilling effect" to First Amandment Rights. Those words “chilling effect” are applied to government actions which inhibit the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. To the extent the “chill” is real, it will render the action unconstitutional. For obvious reasons, I wasn't about to bring that to Arizona's attention at this point.

But keep the ideas coming, and anyone else who has any thoughts, speak up.

[bacopa]

This is what Bob wrote to me but I also got emails from Karen Johnson and Clancey Jayne saying that they would fight the good fight against the bill. Stump was merely trying to scare me off or change my mind.

Mr. Fowler:

Why not learn about the bill, and learn both sides of the issue, before e-mailing every member -- including members who support it?

All the best,

Representative Bob Stump
Arizona House of Representatives
District 9
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ  85007
Phone: (602) 542-5413
http://www.azleg.sta...sp?Member_ID=85

[bacopa]

That seems like a good letter BJ, I hope this thing doesn't pass what else can we do in the mean time?

[bgwowk]

HOLD YOUR EMAILS!

It appears that Stump realized on Wednesday that he was going to lose the vote on this bill, so he called Alcor to setup a "what do you want?" type of meeting to save the bill. Alcor expressed their concerns, and by Thursday morning the bill had been amended to restore Alcor's use of the AAGA/UAGA, and rescind the requirement for emblamer involvement, which were the two most serious items of concern.

Based on this, on recommendation of Alcor's lobbyist, Alcor requested that the Health Committee pass HB 2637 on the undersanding that a study committee would be formed, and further important modifications favorable to Alcor would be made. These modifications are described at

http://www.alcor.org

Essentially a bill that would have seriously harmed Alcor may become the first enabling legislation for cryonics anywhere. It would explicitly define and acknowledge cryonics in statute. If the negotiation process breaks down, the hope and bet is that the bill would get killed on the house floor. There are good reasons to believe that this would happen.

Alcor chose to request passage of the ammended bill in part because of the concern that the ammended bill might survive committee because of the new ammendments, even if Alcor opposed it. The concern was that Alcor would then be perceived to be acting in bad faith after Stump had gone ahead and remedied their two greatest concerns.

After expert scientific testimony that highlighted the inappropriateness of funeral board regulation, and testimony from Alcor's own funeral director that made the Funeral Board's conduct in this matter look bad (a long story), it became apparent that Alcor could still have killed this bill even in its amended form. Two Republicans in particular (Hanson and Arnold) continued to express strong opposition to the bill, and were completely convinced of the inappropriateness of Funeral Board regulation. They only agreed to a yes vote on the condition that Alcor remained happy with the process.

I want everyone to know that the vote today was unanimous because Alcor requested it. Alcor could have killed this bill on the spot if it wanted, thanks to the hundreds of emails, faxes, and phone calls of people like Immist members. Thanks.

So now's the time to stop throwing raw meat into the immortalist crowd, and see where this process goes. Please suspend all email activity. Alcor is currently seeking counsel from its lobbyist to determine if a "thank you" email campaign (yes, even and especially including Stump) might be appropriate. Thanks again, Imminst.

---Brian Wowk

[Bruce Klein]

Excellent! Thanks again Brian for the Update and Advice.

Repeat: Please hold all emails until further notice from Alcor

[Mind]

Hopefully the discussions go well and a bill with some real meaning comes out of the process. I don't like much regulation of any kind, but if Alcor is happy with it, that is what matters.

Something else that matters is we made a difference. I think it is a testament to how far the immortalist movement has come. Cryonics is getting noticed by state governments. It is on the radar screen. Immortalists are a small (at the present) but potent political force.

I can imagine this situation happenning as little as 10 years ago, and losing the battle. Sure, the same agruments would've been made, many of the same phone calls and faxes would've reached their target, just not in large enough quantity to tilt the scale. It is now proven (in Michigan & Arizona) we can tilt a few small scales.

Bigger challenges are on the horizon. If we work together, I am sure we can affect progress in the immortalist movement. Also we should remember that with power comes responsibility.

[thefirstimmortal]

You are all invited to attend services for William O’Rights.
Location: DEATHWATCH Thread.
Time: Shortly after Midnight, early Nov. 1st.
Refreshments: Meatloaf will be served; you will have to bring your own wine.
Host: Rev. William Constitution O’Rights.

The darkest night ain't black enough to keep the morning light from shining,
The highest wall ain't tall enough to keep the smallest man from climbing,
The more that you resist the tide, The more it pulls you in, The more you hang on for your life…

Attached Files

•  House_Pics__The_Cave__Diningroom_011.jpeg   183.83KB   0 downloads