No-holds-barred abortion battle
'Personhood' amendment could ban some birth control, stem-cell research
By Lisa Ryckman, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Saturday, November 24, 2007
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
It's known as the "Definition of a Person" in Colorado, the "Ultimate Human Life Amendment" in Mississippi, the "Paramount Right to Life Amendment" in Georgia and the "Personhood Amendment" in Michigan.
In each case, the measure would change the state constitution to define a fertilized egg as a person entitled to constitutional protections of inalienable rights, justice and due process. And in every case, it's part of a no-compromise anti-abortion strategy that has created a deep divide between those state groups that want a direct attack on Roe v. Wade and those that prefer National Right to Life's incremental approach.
But abortion-rights supporters and opponents agree that Colorado's "personhood" amendment would outlaw abortion and potentially have much broader effects.
Toni Panetta, deputy director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, called the amendment the "latest volley in the death by a thousand paper cuts by anti-choice activists."
She said the amendment potentially could outlaw any form of birth control that makes the uterus a hostile environment, including intrauterine devices and the "morning after" pill, as well as other oral contraceptives.
Colorado Right to Life spokesman Bob Enyart said he thought it also could mean an end to embryonic stem-cell research. "The goal is to stop the killing of unborn children by reasserting the personhood of the unborn," he said.
But Kristi Burton, the 20- year-old head of Colorado for Equal Rights, the group behind the initiative, refused to speculate on what might happen.
"The goal is simply to define when life begins," she said this week after the State Supreme Court cleared the way for the measure by accepting the argument that it fit the definition of a one-issue initiative. "We'll see where it takes us."
Political road ahead
At least for the next six months, the amendment will take Burton and her supporters into the churches they plan to use as bases to collect the 76,000 signatures needed to put it on the November 2008 ballot.
It will probably get there, said independent political analyst Eric Sondermann, but he predicted that it won't play well in a state where more than 60 percent of adults support abortion rights.
"This one is a frontal assault on the right to choose," he said. "Every poll and analysis I've seen shows this is a pro-choice state. If you go at the very core of the right to choose without any exception, it's going to be a very tough political row to hoe."
The measure represents a hard-line strategy by abortion opponents to overturn Roe v. Wade by zeroing in on what they consider a loophole in the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established abortion rights.
"The (state of Texas and others) argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment," Justice Harry Blackmun wrote for the majority. "If this suggestion of personhood is established, (Roe's) case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment."
The hope by anti-abortion groups is that such an amendment would be challenged up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which would uphold it, thereby affirming the "personhood" of the fertilized egg and effectively undoing Roe.
But the strategy has created a rift between state groups and National Right to Life, which prefers to be more subtle.
"National Right to Life is more in favor of the incremental approach, and they don't want people like us and people in the states to even do human life amendments," said Brian Rooney, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which gives free legal help to groups pushing "personhood" measures. "They believe it's not the right time. But we believe it's never the wrong time to do the right thing. The incremental approach has not stopped one abortion from happening."
Colorado voting history
To abortion-rights activists, approach is irrelevant, Panetta said. "It doesn't matter whether they take on Roe in its entirety or chip away at the rights," she said. "Both attempts deny women the right to choose and access to safe medical care."
An amendment similar to Colorado's is still alive in Georgia and Mississippi, but it died in the Montana legislature, failed to get enough signatures in Michigan and was tossed out in Oregon, where Thomas More attorneys have filed a lawsuit.
In recent years, Colorado voters haven't been supportive of measures that limit abortion access. In 2006, backers of a proposal to ban late-term abortions failed to turn in signatures to place the measure on the November ballot.
About 60 percent of voters in 2000 rejected Amendment 25, a measure to delay abortions 24 hours while women perused information on medical risks and other options.
If Colorado voters were to pass a "personhood" amendment, they would be doing something that Justice Blackmun himself refused to do: pinpoint the moment life begins.
"When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus," he wrote in Roe, "the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
Proposed Initiative 36
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution defining the term "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as "person" is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law?
* Supporters say: The amendment would be challenged in court and make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which would use it to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
* Opponents say: The amendment is misleading because it fails to state its main goal, which is to outlaw abortion. It would open a Pandora's box of legal problems by giving fertilized eggs the right to access Colorado's courts.
Comments
Posted by JohnSWren on November 24, 2007 at 6:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When does a woman become a mother, and her child gain equal rights?
When the child draws its first breath? When it is conceived? When it can defeat its father in physical combat?
Who decides? In our representative form of government, in the long run it is our elected representatives. The League of Women voters has said your voice counts most in electing them at your neighborhood caucus. One vote can often make the differnce in nominating candidates and passing resolutions.
Resolutions on both sides of the question are sure to be offered across the state February 5 at the 6000 or so meetings with neighbors at our Colorado caucus.
To have a voice and to be part of the decision, you must register with the political party of your choice by December 5. To learn more Google “Colorado caucus.”
Posted by Theoldguy on November 24, 2007 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is an obvious far reaching quest by the anti-abortion folks simply because the claim that a fertilized clump of cells has the same human rights that a full term human has goes beyond reason. A fertilized human egg has to go through a "proof of viability test" to become a human being. The fertilized egg must first become stronger that its uterine environment after traveling along the fallopian tubes that may, or may not, be conducive to fertilized egg travel. Some of these passages are genetically inferior of may have been damaged by disease or chemicals. This isn't even considering the genetic make up of the two parents' genes which may have far reaching compatibility issues. There are so many variables to an egg becoming full term, or not, that it goes far beyond a simplistic answer being produced by this remedy. Sticking to the wishes of this group one can imagine that a spontaneous abortion would be a crime of the mother.
Knowing that this is an emotional issue, is it wise to let others set the standard? Many less knowledgeable people will be expected to decide this issue. Are the four named states really a repository of in depth knowledge that supports the wishes of the other 46 states?
Posted by Iceman on November 24, 2007 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"We'll see where it takes us."
Regardless of your stance on abortion this is reason enough to oppose the measure. If proponents of a proposal aren't fully aware of the legal impacts, intended or otherwise, there's no way it should be supported. I say this based on years of legal analysis of legislation from an impartial perspective. This isn't just an argument opponents of the measure can and should make - it could be a disaster for pro-life supporters if this measure triggers a flurry of unintended problems that turns public sentiment against such proposals in the future.
Posted by gloriapoole on November 24, 2007 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A human being with human DNA and human cells is human and should be defined as "person" and human for the sake of Constitutional protection. The medical professions, particularly obstetrics, and neonatology defined the moment of life as the moment of fertilization long ago. The reason the Judiciary pretends not to know that, is the love of money that The Bible warns against. [I Timothy 6:10 *] Of course, that only makes the Judiciary branches look foolish and out of touch with truth. And it makes clear the fact that propaganda is the tool of the devil still.
Abortion is death to an innocent human being. That is fact. It is also premeditated because the killers prepare their instruments and their "operating room" that is often not much better than a back-office room of the preborn assassin's work place. There is much testimony that abortionists do not follow standard operating room procedures nor do they have admitting privileges to hospitals for emergency care of the women they butcher. It is also medical fact that millions of women who aborted were rendered sterile and have deep, abiding sorrow and regrets because of that.
The premeditated, purposeful destruction of innocent human life is NOT a right. GOD's commandment is "thou shalt not kill" [Exodus 20:13], and JESUS said, "even so it is not the will of your FATHER which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." [Matthew 18:14]
GOD willing there are more good people in U.S. than wicked, and they will know the truth and vote the truth. It is the right thing to do to outlaw all abortions as soon as possible. It is also the right thing for all those millions of women who were deceived to repent and turn away from such evil, for the sake of your relationship to GOD ALMIGHTY, and the peace of your soul.
I write this as a Registered Nurse of many years who worked in Operating Rooms. I refused to participate in medical killing or call that a "right" and got fired for it, and then was fired again for protesting with words the killing of innocents in hospitals, that is supposedly a First Amendment liberty. However, it is written, "be not deceived. GOD is not mocked. For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."[Galatians 6:7] Those in this nation who have purposely, year after year, voted to continue the mass murders of millions of innocents who were created in the womb by GOD, are going to have to face GOD on HIS JUDGEMENT DAY and h--- is waiting for them. Those who sat by and did nothing to help the innocents, those who actively shredded and murdered innocents, those women who signed the lives of their innocents away on a deceitful "informed consent", those accomplices to evil who stood and handed instruments of death, will also have to give an account before GOD.
signed gloria poole {RN} licensed as Gloria Poole Pappas, RN in Colorado
Posted by rogercopy on November 24, 2007 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why do abortion opponents continue to act as God? The 10 commandments tell us that we should have no other God before Him. In judging and condemning those who support a person's right to control their own body, abortion foes are acting as God, instead of allowing him to do it himself. What human has the right to act as judge and executioner over another human? Opponents should live their own lives and allow God to judge those who would "murder" unborn children. To act on behalf of God and judge someone here on Earth is blasphemy.
Furthermore, why aren't all these abortion foes helping out in Darfur? Many already born babies are dying everyday. Could it be that their righteous dogmatic nature propels them to be our "moral police"? It's hypocritical and sinful for abortion opponents to be so unbalanced in their quest to save lives. It reveals their purpose to be furthering their religious/political agenda, rather than actually saving lives.
Posted by Joanna on November 24, 2007 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So, when does it end. Cancer cells are alive too? Do we protect them? They are part of the human body, so god must want them there, right? Isn't it desecrating human life to remove part of our god-given body?
Will the voters have a solution for all these babies that will be born? Who takes care of them? Face it, we already have enough "parents" who don't do their job...now we force women who don't want to have a baby to deliver a child. Then what?
And I am SO SO SO tired of the BS lines about women who've had abortions who are permanently damaged. That's crap. They've been brainwashed by those around them.
I don't like abortion. I think there are far better forms of birth control, such as abstinence, birth-control pills, IUDs, and other tried and true methods. But I once found myself in a position where I had to make a decision. It was actually quite easy. I protected the one child I had and I protected myself. I had an abortion, because that's what I needed to do to begin becoming a productive member of our society. I got off drugs, graduated from college, worked 2 jobs to pay for it all, and raised my son to become the fine young man he is today.
Oh, yes. It was my choices and my fault that I found myself in the position I did. It was also my choice to pull myself up by my bootstraps and fix things.
Notice all the CHOICES I made? Who are you to tell me I was wrong?
Posted by jay on November 24, 2007 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem with the anti-choice movement's position is that it WON'T reduce the number of abortions performed in the US.
Can I get some sign that the far religious right understands that and get some kind of explanation as to why they continue to shove their fundamentalist, minority beliefs down the throats of the vast majority of Americans?
Posted by Theoldguy on November 24, 2007 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In only a few hours this issue has changed from "the definition of a human" to one of "what is God's law?". I've stayed true to the question and have no idea what God has to say because I have yet to hear His voice. Too many others lay claim to having heard his voice and when then are arrogant enough to tell the world of this new found intelligence I listen if not for any other reason than entertainment.
Regarding the Ten Commandments? The "no other gods before me" was meant to channel the focus toward a more potent god than the many little gods of the time. Does anyone grasp the concept of incrementalism here? It is prevalent in religion and politics.
I'd like to add a thought to this rising conversation by adding that we, as a body of beings, have gone well beyond our limits on this planet. It is very obvious that our breeding attempts have been willy-nilly (since the survival of the fittest has spawned a race of brutes, both physical and mental and over reaching greed)and perhaps it would be better if we limited our attempts, at this level, and actually tried to breed for intelligence.
Posted by Queen_Gorgo on November 24, 2007 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Brian Rooney, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center... said
"The incremental approach has not stopped one abortion from happening."
Which is totally false. Waiting periods, parental involvement laws, mandatory biased counselling and medically unnecesary but financialy onerous clinic regulations have all made abortion more expensive and providers harder to find, forcing women (usually the poorest and youngest) to carry unwanted pregnancies. As fewer private doctors provide abortions, Planned Parenthood does more, allowing the anti-choicers to crow about the record number of abortions they did.
And Gloria Poole Pappas, If you want us to take your words seriously because you're an RN, your religious views are irrelevant, yet they seem to form the basis for your argument. Your writings on abortion medicine are mostly wrong. Women are more likely to feel empowerment or relief after abortion than guilt, and permanent sterility is an exceedungly rare complication.
I'm sure your medical opinion is that better sex education and access to contraception would reduce the number of unplanned pregnanies and abortins.
Posted by jay on November 24, 2007 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I'm sure your medical opinion is that better sex education and access to contraception would reduce the number of unplanned pregnanies and abortins."
This has been proven throughout the world. This is no one's opinion. This is a fact.
Posted by me2 on November 24, 2007 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I`m just wicked enough to hope this passes. Sometimes, the best way to defeat an enemy is to give them what they want. This nasty piece of legislation will reach into every family and into every pregnancy if given enough time. Eventually every woman of childbearing age will be put in the awful position to decide if having children is too great a risk, considering all that can go wrong in a pregnancy and all that can be blamed on the mother.
Since the miscarriage rate is so high, every single one will be a potential crime.
No doubt this will delight the trial lawyers and make them richer, just what the conservatives want.
Posted by Lesforlife on November 24, 2007 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Defining Personhood would open a Pandora's box? Please.
The Pandora's box was opened April 25, 1967 when Dick Lamm's
(first in the nation) abortion law was signed, leading to the death
of nearly 50 million innocent human lives.
The only way to close it is to restore legal protection to every human life, from
the moment of fertilization.
Roe's architect, Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, admitted that if Personhood was ever established, the case for Roe would collapse.
Sadly it has taken the pro-life movement 40 years to take his advice.
Posted by jay on November 24, 2007 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Les, how do you justify your position considering that it won't decrease the number of abortions performed in the US, but rather simply make them more dangerous?
Posted by jerrybaylor on November 25, 2007 at 12:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Intersting theory...as a father who has lost three children, (yes we men are part of the process) I wonder how the law would treat my full term, still born daugther, or the two who were miscarried? Can I take out a life policy and collect insurance since from conception they are human beings? Can I take them as dependants on my tax return? And, how about my wife? Do we have to report the miscarraiges to the authorities? Will the law come and investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of the full term baby? Sounds like we are going to have a lot of questions for more Supreme Courts to answer!
Posted by me2 on November 25, 2007 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jerrybaylor, thank you for posting about your losses. So very sorry this happened to your family.
This legislation will make every miscarriage a potential crime but maybe we can let every pregnant woman have two votes for Hillary in `08.
Posted by nevikpi on November 26, 2007 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The saddest aspect of this entire matter is that even if abortion were outlawed in the US tomorrow, the number of abortion-related deaths would only increase, simply because women who don't want to be pregnant will find ways not to be pregnant, laws to the contrary notwithstanding. And, in that case, at least some of the women undergoing such a procedure would die as well, due to poor medical care. So, effectively, such "pro-life" policies are really PRO-DEATH. Making abortion illegal will not stop it -- it will only cause more death.
Of course, the religious fanatics don't care, for their desire is really not to help anyone. It is to CONTROL other people and make their decisions for them. Therefore, rational, thoughtful, caring people must do what they can to stop the fanatics. If you care about freedom, do what you can to prevent this blatant abuse of the right of women to self-determination. It would be bad for both women AND children!
Posted by JohnSWren on November 27, 2007 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is sure to be a topic at this Friday's Denver Grassroots Forum, 4 p.m. at Panera Bread, 13th & Grant near the Capitol. More info and RSVP at http://cocacop.meetup.com/2 Join us! To speak RSVP or just show up, sign up sheet starts at 3:30 p.m.
Posted by Vierotchka on November 27, 2007 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The goal is simply to define when life begins,"
Life began millions of years ago. The ovum is alive, as is the sperm. Their joining merely assembles two living cells which will begin to divide so as to produce a new individual. This is why we don't create life, we simply procreate. Also, how can one tell if a woman had a fertilized egg which died because of various factors? Strictly speaking, abortion is the medical term for the spontaneous death of an embryo or a fetus - a stillbirth is an abortion too. This is why what we call an abortion is more correctly termed an induced abortion.
Posted by Vierotchka on November 27, 2007 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Having an induced abortion is no more the killing of an unborn child than the killing of an unborn baby, an unborn teenager, an unborn woman, an unborn senior. It is simply the termination of an embryo or a fetus.
Posted by Vierotchka on November 27, 2007 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gloriapoole, the Bible doesn't mention anything against abortion. On the other hand, God does order people to perform abortions, as in Hosea 13:16 - "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."
Posted by bluebird on November 27, 2007 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What I would like to know is how this argument gets from egg to "person-hood". Implicit in the language we use is the knowledge that an unfertilized egg is not an embryo, an embryo is not a fetus, fetuses are not newborns, newborns are not toddlers, toddlers are not teenagers, teenagers are not middle aged people, middle aged people are not old, and finally: old people are not dead people. All of these categories have time as the defining element between one change and another. Since we humans exist in time, our definition does not remain static. Each of us goes through these changes and yet at no time do we believe that a baby is an adult, or that a living person is the same as a dead one. If we believed that, we would bury living people or not bury dead ones. Our laws revolve around the idea that people change in time from one stage to another: children of a certain age must go to school, they may not marry or drink until of a certain age; no one will sue a newborn; no one will legally bury a living ten year old. So the idea that a fertilized egg is a person seems like a deliberate attempt by those with an agenda to confuse our various stages of biological development for their own purposes. A fertilized egg may be the beginning of "life" but that does not make it a "person". At most one could call it a potential life, but as other comments have mentioned; the egg may not be viable and may be discarded by the body itself. This fact shows us that potential life is not the same as life. Again, time is the factor that must be considered in defining these stages.
Posted by blastocele on November 28, 2007 at 10:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion.
Who will investigate these deaths? Will the police have to investigate all spontaneous abortions?
Up to 50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion because the fetus is non viable. This is how Nature/God has planned us.
If this law passes, new fetal ICU's will have to be opened to care for all the nonviable pregnancies. Who will pay for this huge amount of new medical care?
Will all women who have a period after becoming pregnant be required to take the contents of their period to the police station for analysis after a spontaneous abortion? If they do not, how many years should they spend in jail?
Will mothers be investigated for murder if they jog and have a spontaneous abortion? Should they be tried for murder? Maybe the state should confine all pregnant women to their beds for the good of their fetus. What effect would this have on our economy? Don't worry, the fetus police will decide for you.
If a mother takes a drink or misses her multiple vitamins, she could be arrested for child abuse.
BTW, no sex if you are pregnant, this could kill the fetus and you could be tried for premeditated murder.
Of course all women will have to have monthly mandatory pregnancy tests to learn if their are pregnant to protect the fetus.
Yes, let's just pass this law and. "SEE WHAT HAPPENS."....like throwing a rock through a window to see what happens.
If a fetus is a person, a pregnant women is CRIMINALLY liable for the health of her fetus. Welcome to the brave new world.
Baby slave indeed.
Posted by Peacemonger on November 29, 2007 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If it has a social security number, then certainly it IS a person. At least in the face of the law. If it does not...
Well, does it?
Shouldn't we prosecute men for wet dreams? It is half a genocide!
Posted by ARTadvocate on December 3, 2007 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What does this mean for people who undergo IVF and freeze extra embryos to prevent having high-order multiple pregnancies or attempt pregnancy at a later date? I wonder how the assisted reproductive technology community would react if they had to ensure the "civil" rights of 4 frozen embryos were protected during cryopreservation. Does this mean they are murderers if some of those embryos don't develop after thawing? Does this mean that the fertilized eggs that don't develop in a petri-dish deserve death certificates, and all fertilized eggs get a birth certificate? What about the embryo that doesn't implant after an IVF transfer? Is the prospective mom a murderer because she didn't get pregnant?
This is extreme, but hopefully some of y'all see where I am going with these examples. This type of legislation has impacts beyond limiting stem cell research and Roe V. Wade. It puts an entire body of medical service - ART - into jeopardy by creating a whole plethora of unknown legal pitfalls for doctors that might simply leave CO than assist infertile men and women rather than be charged with "murder".
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.