LAWRENCEVILLE - As you read this, a last ditch legal effort is underway to block the $450 million stem cell research ballot question in the Nov. 6 election.

In an accelerated hearing, Oct. 22, attorneys for New Jersey Right to Life will appear before a panel of three appellate court judges in Newark to argue that ballot question two withholds vital information from voters about ethics and financing.

In an appeal of a court defeat Sept. 24, New Jersey Right to Life will ask the judges to order that a public vote on the issue be disregarded or that voting machines be adjusted to not accept votes on Question 2.

The appellate court hearing is a shot in the arm for the many, many life minded folks who were so disappointed by Superior Court Judge Neil Shuster's ruling that the bonding proposal must stay on the ballot.

Once again, hats off to Marie Tasy, executive director of New Jersey Right to Life who has worked for five years to draw attention to the very dangerous piece of legislation that is the New Jersey stem cell bill and its clones – the facilities around New Jersey where diabolical research will be carried out if the bond act carries.

Thanks to Tasy and the 15 other Jerseyites who signed onto McKenzie et al. v. Corzine and the Morristown-based Legal Center in Defense of Life, there's a glimmer of hope that justice might prevail.

"I'm somewhat optimistic that we were granted an accelerated hearing," Tasy said Oct. 15. "They could have dismissed (the appeal). But they did not."

You really have to admire Tasy and crew and their ongoing effort to make the case that the ballot question, like the interpretive statement that accompanies it and indeed, the bill that preceded it, lacks the information voters need to decide what button to push on question 2.

The missing information includes, of course, the fact that the vast majority of the research will be conducted on human embryos, that cloning of human beings is deceptively written into the subtext of the original bill, that adult stem cell research – which has produced a bounty of results – will be under funded and, that the tax payers will have to underwrite this scientific misadventure with even more of their dollars if a financial windfall doesn't immediately materialize.

The lack of information is critical, Tasy said. "It interferes with the franchise of the voters. It withholds vital information about matters of ethics and how the financing of the bond will actually be interpreted."

Omitted is even the merest hint that the research will be done on human beings, she said. "The voters have a right to understand what it is they are being asked to vote for," she said.

"People have the right to be informed about the moral and financial consequences of the referendum."

Tasy said the group is hopeful the appeals panel will decide in favor of life but will press forward whatever happens. Should the appeals court let the life side down, there will be a blitz of radio and print media ads urging the public to vote no on Question 2.

"Let's not beat about the bush," she said, "through their actions, the sponsors (of stem cell legislation) have deceived voters. They can hide behind the democratic process but when you are withholding information, you are interfering in that process and we have to continue to make that point."

Lois Rogers is the feature editor of The Monitor