Opposition to Proposition 71 came from a wide range of groups. From pro-choice feminists to religious leaders, many lobbied against the proposition. Some groups against the proposition were:

• California Nurses Association
• Pro-Choice Alliance Against Proposition 71
• San Mateo Medical Association
• Center for Genetics and Society
• Catholic Conference
• Biblical Family Advocates
• Evangelical Christian Howard Ahmanson Jr.
• Doctors, Patients, and Taxpayers for Fiscal Responsibility

People against proposition 71 managed to raise about $200,000, a sum far smaller than the $25 million raised by supporters. The two largest donators were the Roman Catholic Church and the Ahmanson who contributed $50,000 each. Thus, they did not have the funds to launch as extensive campaign against the proposition.

Arguments They Gave Against Proposition 71

Opposition to the proposition was made on both moral and financial grounds. The opposition refuted the supporters’ arguments concerning potential benefits and costs, while also addressing concerns over what constitutes human life.

From a moral standpoint, certain groups opposed the use of stem cells, arguing that they should be considered a human life. The research that will be funded involves the use of cells from human embryos. Consequently, from this perspective, the proposition enables the state to fund research that destroys human embryos, and by extension human life.

Many claimed that California was not in the financial position to spend such a large sum of money on the stem cell research. They pointed to California’s large deficit as well as recent cuts in education and healthcare as evidence that the state did not have the money for the proposition. Over the long-run, they said the proposition would lead to $6 billion dollars more in debt as well as decreased money for other public works. In addition to this, they emphasized the large corporate support of the bill, saying that corporations, not Californians benefited most.

People who opposed the bill also doubted the extent to which further stem cell research could reduce healthcare costs and cure diseases. They emphasized that in many cases cures using stem cells were actually more costly than current treatments. Thus, healthcare costs could actually increase due to further innovation. In addition, they argued that stem cells, while promising, have not proven to be useful in for many different settings. Consequently, broad claims made by supporters can in fact be misleading. Furthermore, the proposition only funds embryonic stem cell research. As a result, research with other types of stem cells, which may have significant merit, may not receive the funds to develop further.