Amendment 48 is a definition, not a law
James Jones, Littleton
Published October 3, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Identifying himself as Catholic and retired obstetrician, Dr. Thomas W. Moffatt penned a Sept. 23 letter warning about mothers dying and physicians jailed if Amendment 48 passes ("Catholic physician: No to Amendment 48").
But the text of the amendment is clear - this is a definition, not a law. The amendment doesn't prohibit or allow anything. For Moffatt's fears to be realized, the state would have to create legislation criminalizing abortions conducted for health reasons. How likely is it that?
Prior to Roe v. Wade, Colorado law authorized abortion in cases of health, rape and incest. A recent South Dakota referendum proposed to outlaw abortion with no exception for health. The Catholic Church opposed the resolution which failed by a 3-to-1 margin. There is no rational basis for thinking that the legislature would enact draconian measures contrary to prevailing opinion. Moffatt's fears have no foundation.
The most important social policy issue of this generation concerns the morality of abortion for birth control. The true subtext of Amendment 48 is to ask Coloradans to consider that, in some cases, the human being in the womb has a right to live that should not be ignored. Moffatt's demagoguery is a disservice to health-care professionals, the Catholic community and Coloradans generally.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
October 3, 2008
1:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
OK kids lets all say it together... EUGENICS...
October 3, 2008
4:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrfxx writes:
The "unintended consequences" of this "definition" include
1) Ending the use of in vitro fertilization for couple with fertility issues who desparately want to have a child "of their own" (as opposed to adopting), since, as a rule, it is only cost effective to fertilize many eggs at one time, which are then implanted. Couples who are successful having a child - or children - often "leave behind" numbers of fertilized eggs which eventually are destroyed.
2) Ending the use of any forms of contraception which prevent a fertilized egg from implanting (IUD, the pill, etc). Basically the only form of contraception left would be the condom - which puts birth control back at the whim of the male. By the way, according to the medical community, the probability is that less than 50% of fertilized eggs actually implant.
3) The possibility of criminal prosecution of any woman who has a spontaneous abortion (which is the medical name for a miscarriage). For those of you who are unaware, depending on age and health of the woman, these occur in 15-50% of potential pregnancies (between this point and the one above, this makes GOD the most prolific abortionist of all).
I find it intriguing that the so-called Christians who want to "pick and choose" what portions of the bible to accept choose to ignore the detail that - according to God - life starts with the first breath! Perhaps God understood that not every potential pregnancy should come to term. I'm so glad that these folks know better than God.
October 3, 2008
5:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tom writes:
In Colorado, a "person" -- someone with the full rights and entitlements of LAWS -- can be nothing more than a fertilized egg. "Definitions" have HUGE impact on "laws".
October 3, 2008
6:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Awww, let's play the semantics game. This is just a "definition" - there's no chance it'll actually be used, right? Let's ignore the fact that this "definition" is so biased that it doesn't account for situations that involve a mother's health, or items like twins ("a" human life begins at "conception"). In that, it is extremely poorly written, so as a "definition", should be trashed!
October 3, 2008
6:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
LetsThink writes:
There is so much deception being used by those who want to abort unborn babies, it is truly frightening. Are humans really capable of this behavior??
Can they justify killing 4,000 unborn babies every day?? How?
Are they absolutley certain that God is not creating a unique baby inside the womb, for His purpose, that they want to destroy?
Would they individually be able to perform the abortion? That is, plunge the knife into the baby??
No pro-abortion blogger has ever been willing to address these questions. They always change the topic to some irrelevant side issue.
I am praying for the morality of America.
October 3, 2008
7:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
LetsThink - Are you sure you're rooting for the right cosmic deity? If you're on the wrong side with your worship, you might end up in the burning place where you assume the rest of us will go.
If a baby is aborted, wouldn't it go straight to Heaven? Wouldn't the person who commited the act have to answer to your god for their crime? Does your book not say "vengeance is mine" as spoken by the object of your prayers?
You assume a lot, and clearly feel contempt for us. Do you pray for our salvation, or our path to the burning place for eternal torment?
I hope you can clear your mind and stop the overly-righteous. Talk to your local religious advisor about your behavior toward your fellow man. I urge you to look inward and decide whether you're on the right course.
October 3, 2008
9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Danchan writes:
What an incredibly stupid letter. Is Mr. Jones actually arguing that a changing the definition of this word will have no consequences?
Laws are made of words.
Wow. Just.... wow.
October 3, 2008
9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
IronmanCarmichael writes:
Does that mean gay couples can get married even if the "definition" of the term marriage is officially recognized in ballot measures as a one-man-one-woman union?
October 3, 2008
9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
Solomon,
Would you join the philosophy of groups like Focus on the Family who are dead-set against the use of contraceptives and sex education to prevent pregnancy and thus eliminate the need for abortions? Focus on the Family believes sex should only occur between married, traditional couples.
If a mother carried her baby to full term and gives it up for adoption, who will adopt the child? We already have hundreds, if not thousands, of babies and young children which have no prospects of joining a family. Many of the Christians I have spoken to have no intention of adopting because they want children of their own.
What will you personally do to help prevent pregnancies?
October 3, 2008
9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
grandpaw writes:
While it is ridiculous to assert that a definition is not part of the law because it is a vital part of any law, my posts declaring that Amendment 48 would make abortion a murder needs some correcting and clarification.
In my research I negligently overlooked the fact that the murder statute itself contains the definition of a person under its provisions.
"Person, when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who had been born and was alive at the time of the homicidal act."
So, the murder statute itself limits its application the born.
But what about the interaction of the murder statute and Amendment 48?
Amendment 48 states:
"SECTION 1. Article II of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:
Section 31. Person defined. AS USED IN SECTIONS 3, 6, AND 25 OF ARTICLE II OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, THE TERMS "PERSON" OR "PERSONS" SHALL INCLUDE ANY
HUMAN BEING FROM THE MOMENT OF FERTILIZATION."
Under Amendment 48, Sections 3, 6 and 27 of the constitution would in effect read as follows insofar as the unborn are concerned:
"Section 3. Inalienable rights. [The unborn] have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."
"Section 6. Equality of justice. Courts of justice shall be open to [the unborn], and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to [the unborn]; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay."
"Section 25. Due process of law. No [unborn] shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."
In other words,
(1) the life of the unborn cannot be taken away without due process of law, that is, without a court hearing, and
(2) a born person could go to court to protect the life of the unborn, and
(3) The unborn shall have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
It seems clear to me that no abortion could take place under Amendment 48 without a court order, and that it would be unconstitutional for a court to issue such an order.
October 3, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
KelcyCo writes:
How about defining a human being as one that can survive outside the womb without medical intervention. That would eliminate most fetuses born before something like 32 weeks. Until it can survive on its own with just basic care and feeding then it is just a potential human being. With medical intervention I think we treat the fetuses as if they were living experiments...which to me is cruel and inhumane.
What do these people want to do, sue God? When I was going through infertility treatment my doctor explained (after I lost two pregnancies) that only 50 percent of all conceptions actually implant in the uterus and only 50 percent of those make it to term. Most of those are lost in the first few weeks when women would not even realize they were pregnant but would just think they were late.
I`m voting no on this silliness.
October 3, 2008
9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
HKrening writes:
How naive does James Jones think the Colorado voters are? Definitions are not put into amendments for tea party discussions, they are put there to guide legislators and courts in deciding on law.
Amendment 48 has one purpose: to impose religious doctrine on all citizens of Colorado.
October 3, 2008
11:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
although African-American children are most often born to single women... jimminy
Do you know that as a fact?
October 3, 2008
12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
4gColoNative writes:
Re: "But the text of the amendment is clear - this is a definition, not a law. The amendment doesn't prohibit or allow anything."
!!! This might be the best example the world has ever seen of *disingenuousness* !!!
I'll save some of you the look-up: "Giving a false appearance of simple frankness." (Webster's New Collegiate)
Aside from the fact that 48 is BAD, vote "no" for the simple fact that supporters of this are trying to trick you!
October 3, 2008
12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
Jimminy,
After doing a search on the 'net, it turns out there are plenty of babies available for adoption. There are also parents waiting to adopt. Take a look at
http://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&a...
Or look here:
http://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&a...
They list how many adoptions have taken place, but nowhere do they list how many children are still parentless. They accept any baby and offer all sorts of health services. Nowhere is anything about bastardly or damaged or drug-addicted children.
If you can find data which contradicts these websites, please be kind enough to provide a link.
October 3, 2008
12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
jimminy,
Thanks, I knew it was bad - I didn't realize it was that bad.
The bastardy issue is important and, however tangential, the clarity (which on this page often involves unpacking Grouch) is always welcome. Thanks again.
October 3, 2008
12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
4gColoNative writes:
Deception
If you were one of the people who signed a petition leading to this Amendment coming before us for vote,
now is your chance to strike back for being deceived. Vote "no" on 48.
October 3, 2008
12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
A pregnant woman with cancer, will not be able to receive cancer treatment until after the birth. Is this okay with you pros?
LetsThink the term plunging the knife into a baby is just an idea in your mind. Now I see why this makes you so emotional.
October 3, 2008
2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
grandpaw writes:
It's understandable that the pro-birth posters have changed the subject from the effect of Amendment 48 to the subject of adoption. Yankee and Jimminy both realize the Amendment 48 makes abortion illegal so it is a subject that scares them away.
Yankee particularly is too much of a coward to address the actual language of Amendment 48 and how it treats the unborn the same as the born with respect to due process, the right to court protection and the right to life. It is clearly a right to life for the unborn amendment. It is clearly designed to prohibit abortion. It is clearly designed to try to overrule Roe vs. Wade.
So, what does Yankee do when faced with the question of whether Amendment 48 prohibits abortion? He posts:
"although African-American children are most often born to single women... jimminy Do you know that as a fact?"
And then a post about bastardy.
Next time he is asked whether his opening letter is true or not, his answer may be about who will win the World Series next year.
October 3, 2008
2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
Factcheck time
"The Catholic Church opposed the resolution which failed by a 3-to-1 margin"
"Once on the ballot, South Dakota voters rejected HB 1215, with 44.4% of them voting in favor of it. As a result, HB 1215 was nullifed and never took effect."
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php...(2006)
Fact free and full speed ahead, that's our Jimmy.
October 3, 2008
9:50 a.m.
KelcyCo writes:
"How about defining a human being as one that can survive outside the womb without medical intervention. That would eliminate most fetuses born before something like 32 weeks."
I agree with your sentiment, but your numbers are wrong: "We provide an ethical analysis of the divergence of mortality and potential morbidity in very premature infants. Based on this ethical analysis we conclude that at this time viability should be at 24 weeks or greater and not at 23 weeks."
J Perinat Med. 1997;25(5):418-20.Links
The limits of viability.Chervenak FA, McCullough LB.
Despite what pro-birthers proclaim, the 24 week line has not budged in >20 years.
October 3, 2008
2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
Jimminy,
Talk is cheap. Provide facts or admit you're only giving your opnion.
October 3, 2008
3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
O_TRAIN writes:
"But the text of the amendment is clear - this is a definition, not a law. The amendment doesn't prohibit or allow anything."
So, again what is the point? (beyond the obvious religious agenda)
I consult Doctors for medical issues and I consult my Websters dictionary for definitions. A yankee by any other name is still a yankee.
Vote No
October 3, 2008
3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
"Until it can survive on its own with just basic care and feeding then it is just a potential human being. "
With that warped thinking, then anyone in a coma is not a human being.... just a "potential" human being.
The bizarre excuses used by the pro-death crowd to justify the killing of innocent children make them look more confused than ever.
Meanwhile.... the fact that they are UNABLE to answer direct questions proves the vapidness of their support for the killing of innocent children:
1. At what time after conception, does a "fetus" become a baby?
2. What biological event occurs to convert the "fetus" into a baby?
3. What is the difference between a human and a person?
October 3, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
RichardParker writes:
“Little girls do not grow up dreaming of hopping from bed to bed and contraception,” their website states. “They dream of a man who will sweep them off their feet and love them forever, and having his many children.”
If I take their assumption as truth and at face value, I wonder . . .
What do boys dream of? Would this statement apply to men as well?
If this organization's assumption is true, perhaps female-centric legislation isn't the answer.
October 3, 2008
3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
once again....after the far religious right myths, willful ignorance, talking points and fallacious arguments are played out we're forced to come to terms with reality.
outlawing abortion (or the steps taken in that direction) will not decrease abortions.
the majority of americans want to keep abortion legal, safe and rare and do not support overturning roe.
all the rhetoric in the world isn't going to change those facts.
October 3, 2008
4:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Okay, one more time. A pregnant woman with cancer or any other sever medical condition that requires a treatment which will harm the fetus, would have to wait till after birth, or maybe luck out with an early miscarriage.
Are all you men alright with this?
Jimminy, please just answer the question, don't try to read LetsThinks mind
October 3, 2008
4:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Typical.... unable to state a logical explanation in support of their defense of the killing of innocent children, the pro-death crowd resorts to myths....
"outlawing abortion (or the steps taken in that direction) will not decrease abortions."
Besides the complete illogic of such a ludicrous claim, the facts are irrefutable.
Studies by the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion, show that the number of abortions rose 937% from 1972 to 1975. Legalizing abortion caused the number of abortions to skyrocket in just 3 years time.
Also, Poland demonstrates what happens when abortion is banned. Between 1960 and 1990, the number of abortions averaged 167,000 per year. In 1990, after the overthrow of the pro-abortion communist system, abortion was banned, except in the case of rape or incest. The average number of abortions from 1991 to 2006? 312 annually. That is a 99.8 percent reduction after abortion was banned.
"the majority of americans want to keep abortion legal, safe and rare and do not support overturning roe."
"A January 2007 CBS News poll found a majority of Americans want to prohibit abortions in all or most cases or want greater restrictions on abortions. The poll results are consistent with the results from 2006 when more than half of those polled wanted to make abortion illegal all or most of the time.
The poll was conducted from January 18-21 and it surveyed 1,168 adults nationwide."
So much for the myth that the pro-death crowd loves to espouse.
But then if someone is mentally ill enough to support the killing of innocent children, they certainly lack the mental capacity to determine the difference between fact and fantasy.
October 3, 2008
5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
ricky bobby, several folks have established the facts i've outlined above in previous threads.
do you mind if i just point you in that direction instead of going through the whole thing again?
October 3, 2008
5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
1. At what time after conception, does a "fetus" become a baby?
Birth
2. What biological event occurs to convert the "fetus" into a baby?
Birth
3. What is the difference between a human and a person?
Being born.
The first two are medical definitions the third is a legal distinction. "Persons" have inheritance rights. If I'm pregnant and my uncle leaves his estate to my cousin and my fetus, and we die before delivery, do my next of kin now get the fetus' share of the estate which without amendment 48 would have gone entirely to my cousin?
October 3, 2008
6:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
grandpaw writes:
"Jimminy writes: Grandpaw,I already told Yankee my source for African-American illegitimacy statistics.Now I realize that since I'm on the side of the angels and you're not,you'll resist doing ANYTHING that I do,but could you make an exception and put on your reading glasses?"
I have my reading glasses on, Jimminy. Now I'm looking forward to reading that you recognize that Amendment 48 will prohibit abortions.
As I have illustrated, Amendment 48 establishes, by its becoming a part of Section 3 of Article II of the Colorado constitution, that the unborn have the right to a court proceeding to protect themselves, and that, using the pro-life nomenclature, the life of the unborn cannot be taken away without due process of law; and that, by becoming a part of Section 6, a court must protect the life of the unborn, and establishes that, by becoming a part of Section 25, the unborn have an inalienable right to life.
In other words, abortions would be illegal if Amendment 48 were to pass.
It seems to me that is exactly what the pro-birth position is. Why are you ashamed to admit it? Could it possibly be that you want to ignore that fact in the hope that voters will be deceived into not realizing it is a fact? For shame.
It's not an argument either for or against abortion. It is simply being willing to admit the truth about Amendment 48. I know that Yankee refuses to admit the truth, but do you also refuse to admit the truth?
In order to intelligently discuss Amendment 48, in order to be able to vote intelligently on it, it is obvious that we have to read its wording and understand what its effect will be. Doesn't that make sense? If so, why are you and Yankee reluctant to look at its wording and the effect of that wording? You surely will admit that it looks mighty suspicious for you to advocate the passing of Amendment 48 but don't want to discuss what it says.
October 3, 2008
7:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
LetsThink writes:
A lot of talking, all day long.
But did anybody answer the question????
October 3, 2008
8:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sweetpickle writes:
Hey LT I put another dollar in my Planned Parenthood jar.
It doesn't look like you are doing well on your jihad.
October 3, 2008
8:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Then jimminy you agree that yankees or James Jones or whoever they truly are is being deceitful in the original letter and the reason you expect a "gotcha" is because you know that all of the folks representative of this amendment are being deceitful. Your just trying to soften the blow.
From HKrening:
"How naive does James Jones think the Colorado voters are? Definitions are not put into amendments for tea party discussions, they are put there to guide legislators and courts in deciding on law.
Amendment 48 has one purpose: to impose religious doctrine on all citizens of Colorado."
...and the amendment will cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars to come to a vote that will surely be defeated. Moneys poorly spent for a religious cause.
Questions: How long are you fiscally conservative Republicans going to allow these tax wasting social conservatives to remain in your party?
Is winning elections with these deceitful people really worth degrading your party?
Wouldn't it be better to put a little effort and compromise into securing more of the undeclared moderate and independent voters and leave these liars by the side of the road?
It would certainly be the moral thing to do.
October 3, 2008
8:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
LetsThink,
As people have told you on many occasions in these forums, you question has been answered, you simply refuse to acknowledge the answer.
Deceitfulness is also a sin LetsThink. But you know that, which makes it an intentional sin. Very hard to forgive, even for God. Who knows maybe those "death bed" confession really do work with him.
October 3, 2008
8:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
grandpaw writes:
"Jimminy writes: Sorry about that,Grandpaw-and thanks for quoting the language of 48.OF COURSE 48 will prohibit abortion,and I'm certain that everyone reading/posting herehas known it from the beginning.Prohibiting abortion,as we prohibit other forms of murder,is the whole idea.I rather suspect,though,that there's an attempt at a "gotcha" coming along here directly.Back later."
Yankee has been denying all along that Amendment 48 does anything about abortion. Did you read his letter to the editor at the beginning of this thread?
Yankee: "The amendment doesn't prohibit or allow anything."
He has stated that position several times in the various Amendment 48 threads.
The website of the organization supporting Amendment 48, http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com/ does not mention abortion, although it does refer to a news article which states: "The constitutional amendment endorsing personhood for unborn children could pave the way to prohibiting abortions."
You are correct to disagree with Yankee. Is that a "gotcha"? I don't think so. It's merely pointing out that Yankee has been trying to deceive people about the amendment. I'm surprised you weren't aware of that.
October 3, 2008
9:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Jimminy,
"Then jimminy you agree that yankees or James Jones or whoever they truly are is being deceitful in the original letter and the reason you expect a "gotcha" is because you know that all of the folks representative of this amendment are being deceitful. Your just trying to soften the blow."
My post to you said nothing of religion. As you can see above I simply asked of whether or not you felt James Jones was being deceitful.
If you'd like to get into a religion discussion fine but answer the question first.
In stating, "OF COURSE 48 will prohibit abortion,and I'm certain that everyone reading/posting here has known it from the beginning" are you saying James Jones being deceitful in his letter?
October 3, 2008
10:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
grandpaw at 9:45am, you cited the definition of "person" in the murder statutes. On the surface, Amendment 48 confines itself to certain sections of Colorado Constitution Article II, Colorado's Bill of Rights. But if 48 passes (God forbid!), I suspect the powerhouse attornies really behind this amendment or zealous DAs would try to argue that Amendment 48's constitutional definition should override the statutory definition.
James Jones' whine that Amendment 48 is "merely a definition" is laughable. I've watched the Colorado House of Representatives for 20 years, off and on. Sharp lawmakers can greatly expand or eviscerate a bill through subtle changes in definitions. lobbyists can affect their clients' interests by getting lawmakers to change definitions. Definitions create actions and effects.
October 3, 2008
11:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
So if a pregnant woman has a medical condition where the treatment would harm the fetus, that treatment has to be postponed till after delivery.
I guess until this happens to someone you love, you will not care.
October 4, 2008
1:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
LetsThink, I have decided to try to answer all you questions as best I can. I will use emotionally neutral terms. No loaded expressions or hyperbole.
First, when a human female becomes pregnant, she has inside her a pregnancy unit that can not exist without her body and her consent. This pregnancy unit is the sole property of the human female. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the female. Over time, roughly 9 months, the pregnancy unit becomes able to exist outside the females body, then ownership is gradually transferred to it. The first few months of this pregnancy are the sole responsibility of the female and since there is no way to know at what moment the pregnancy unit can live completely without the support of her body, we citizens use a sliding scale of ownership. Full ownership has usually been transferred at birth, however we have allowed full ownership before birth, if the pregnancy unit is damaged by anyone else.
The question of civil rights for the pregnancy unit are unique and can not be equated to slavery, child protection laws or any other situation where one human lives outside the body of another.
If the human female wants the pregnancy unit it will survive, baring accident, if she does not, it will not.
Because civilized societies recognize these facts, they allow the human female to control the destiny of the pregnancy unit for many months, then the ownership and control transfer to the unit.
Not a perfect solution, but workable for many years.
This is how many women think, and I think you should know it.
October 4, 2008
6:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
grandpaw writes:
peterpi: "But if 48 passes (God forbid!), I suspect the powerhouse attornies really behind this amendment or zealous DAs would try to argue that Amendment 48's constitutional definition should override the statutory definition."
If the constitution says something different than a statute, of course the constitution prevails. I've explained as best I could that under Amendment 48 abortions would be illegal regardless of the wording of the murder statute.
October 9, 2008
9:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
srm1990 writes:
well, I believe abortion is some times needed. There are way to many people having them for birth control. There is this lady that by the will of GOD got pregnant with Triplets!!! Thats almost impossible naturally. Anyway didn't want 3 so found out in her fifth month what she was having and then picked the one she wanted and aborted the other 2. Come on people.... 42 million per year and ONLY 1% were from incest or rape!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!