Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Amend. 48 debate: Save lives or open a Pandora's box?

By David Montero, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 10, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  
Kristi Burton, initiator of Amendment 48, offers arguments in favor of defining a fertilized egg as a person during a debate at the University of Denver. Opponent Pat Steadman, right, argued that "it's hard to imagine there not being unintended consequences."

Photo by Brian Lehmann / The Rocky

Kristi Burton, initiator of Amendment 48, offers arguments in favor of defining a fertilized egg as a person during a debate at the University of Denver. Opponent Pat Steadman, right, argued that "it's hard to imagine there not being unintended consequences."

More Elections

More stories »

Science now knows that life begins at the moment of conception, the initiator of the Personhood Amendment told an audience of 30 at the University of Denver Thursday night.

Kristi Burton said legally defining that fertilized egg as a person, as her amendment does, will guarantee it inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process.

But Pat Steadman, a lobbyist and lawyer who opposes Amendment 48, argued that it's a Pandora's box.

"I think it's hard to imagine there not being unintended consequences," he said.

Burton and Steadman argued their positions at a debate sponsored by the Black Law Students Association.

Burton said medical science has come a long way since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Roe vs. Wade, and that it is clear now that life begins at conception.

She criticized those who argue that her amendment would create a legal morass because the word "person" appears in more than 20,000 state statutes.

"A definition doesn't have that power," she said. "A definition lays down the foundation . . . but it doesn't guarantee any particular result."

Steadman disagreed, saying the measure would affect contracts, wills, criminal prosecutions and the ability for medical providers to get insurance because insurers wouldn't want to operate in a state where there is so much uncertainty about a fertilized egg having constitutional rights.

Steadman also said it puts government and the courts squarely between patients and medical providers and would have "a chilling effect" on their ability to make the best health decisions.

Steadman and Burton on Amendment 48

The pair spent about 20 minutes addressing audience questions. They have been edited for clarity and space.

* Federal abortion rights guarantees would trump this measure, if it passed, so why be concerned about it?

Steadman: I think it's intended to chip away at Roe vs. Wade and that this is a test case to overturn (the decision). Supporters of the amendment targeted Colorado because it's one of the easiest states in which to get a ballot measure qualified.

Burton: This is not a targeted effort. I was born here. I live here. That's why I did it here.

* Why did three Catholic bishops decline to support it, given their pro-life stance?

Burton: They have said they admired the goals of the amendment, but they just didn't feel it was the best vehicle to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Steadman: It shows the depth of division among those who oppose abortion rights. It shows there is a lot of concern about unintended consequences.

* (Directed to Burton) Why do you often focus on what the measure won't do - give fertilized eggs the right to vote or obtain a gun - rather than what it would do?

Burton: It's pretty simple and there isn't a lot to say. It lays a foundation so when you're dealing with important life issues like abortion and fertility, we would then have a definition to view them through. It's a definition that recognizes that medical science tells us that when an egg is fertilized at conception, a human being has been created.

Measure's effect

* Among other things, it would define personhood to include any human being from the moment of fertilization.

Comments

  • October 10, 2008

    4:01 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Bob299 writes:

    I wonder how all of the infertility clinics are going to react. Infertility is not an exact science. Couples can easily have multiple eggs fertilized. How many is too many? You can handle six kids because they are cute and you may get your own tv show, but 1o or 15 eggs are fertilized and then what kid of decision do you make? This amendment would make you a murderer!

  • October 10, 2008

    4:04 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Bob299 writes:

    Also, who in there right mind would let a 21-year old (Kristi Burton) make these types of important decisions? Kristi has zero life experience (Wait until she's 36 trying to get pregnant after saving herself for 15 years) and has no right to tell anyone what to do with their personal life.

  • October 10, 2008

    4:51 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    hunterman writes:

    I'll just say what Kristi knows about science can probably fit on a matchbook, and leave it at that. No 48, no chance.