Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

Foes: Amendment 48 goes 'too far'

Rally rips measure on personhood; author cites need to define start of life

By David Montero, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published September 11, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  
Paula Osmond and 21-month-old daughter Claire shush each other Wednesday at the No On 48 rally at the Tivoli Center on the Auraria campus . Foes say the amendment goes too far in its bid to legally define personhood and does not respect family decisions. But amendment author Kristi Burton says there is a need to define when life begins.

Photo by Chris Schneider / The Rocky

Paula Osmond and 21-month-old daughter Claire shush each other Wednesday at the No On 48 rally at the Tivoli Center on the Auraria campus . Foes say the amendment goes too far in its bid to legally define personhood and does not respect family decisions. But amendment author Kristi Burton says there is a need to define when life begins.

More Elections

More stories »

Opponents of Amendment 48 gathered inside the Tivoli Center at the Auraria campus Wednesday to kick off their campaign and blast the measure as going "too far" in its attempt to legally define personhood.

Waving signs echoing that sentiment, about 80 people cheered when Ryan Osmond arrived with his wife and young daughter to speak on behalf of those who used in-vitro fertilization to conceive.

Osmond said that by defining an egg at the moment of fertilization as a person and by giving it full protections under the state Constitution, the proposed amendment could "open the door to prevent in-vitro pregnancies."

"It creates legal uncertainty," he said.

Amendment 48 author Kristi Burton said there is a need to define when life begins.

Amendment 48 - the first measure of its kind to make it to a statewide ballot - is viewed by some as an opportunity to challenge Roe. v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established abortion rights.

But Burton said she is trying to take the abortion debate to another level and "get us to define personhood."

At the rally, however, opponents saw a government-heavy measure they said would strip away women's rights.

"This amendment does not respect family decisions," No on 48 Campaign director Fofi Mendez said. She added the measure would let the government and courts intervene in medical decisions about what the best course of treatment would be for a woman. The example provided was if a woman has cancer and needed treatment that would destroy the fertilized egg, Amendment 48 raises the possibility that medical providers could face criminal charges.

Jeremy Shaver, director of community outreach for the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, said government should not be the arbiter in personal health decisions.

"A family facing a medical crisis . . . should be able to turn to their doctor, their family, their pastor for guidance," he said. "Not government, courts and lawyers."

But Burton said there is a larger point.

"They are missing the core issue of when life begins," she said. "That is what this is trying to establish."

Comments

  • September 11, 2008

    8:54 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    dianahsieh writes:

    The problem with Amendment 48 is not that "it simply goes to far" as the No on 48 Coalition claims. That implies that some restrictions on abortion, birth control, and IVF would be okay. In fact, any and all laws restricting reproductive freedoms are wrong.

    The reason is that -- contrary to the claims of Kristi Burton -- the question is not when life begins, but when a new person with rights comes into existence. That happens at birth, not conception.

    For the details, see "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person", an issue paper by Ari Armstrong and myself, published by the Coalition for Secular Government. It is available at:

    http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/...

    Diana Hsieh
    Founder, Coalition for Secular Government
    http://www.seculargovernment.us

  • September 11, 2008

    9:08 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Arriviste writes:

    Ms Hsieh,

    I agree that the nuance regarding the No on 48 tagline may not hit the mark entirely. But the spirit in which the message was delivered (and the message itself for that matter) was still very much on point at yesterday's rally.

    I look forward to reading the issue paper that you have posted.

    For my part, I will be voting NO on Amendment 48, and I urge all Colorado voters to do the same!

    Sincerely,
    Ryan Osmond

  • September 13, 2008

    11:31 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    GinaLiggett writes:

    This amendment is a striking example of why we must uphold the Separation of Church and State, as explicitly stated in our United States First Amendment. The only rationale for amendment 48 is quoted scripture, as in laws of totalitarian theocracies. In America rights apply to living citizens, not to what some religious group believes God wants; Kristi Burton blatantly states that this amendment is for God. We must be ever-vigilant to ensure that America remains a free, secular society that respects the civil rights, privacy and right-to-life of living, born citizens. Vote NO on 48 and send the Religious Right a message not to try and mess with our Constitution again!

  • September 23, 2008

    10:59 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Nancyu writes:

    It does not matter what legal uncertainties it creates. It does not matter what complication will arise because of it. It doesn't matter if it goes to far. An unborn child IS a person. It simply is. There is nothing anyone can do to change the fact. Personhood has already been defined. A person is a human being. And an unborn child is a human being. If you don't like that idea; if it makes life to complicated and inconvenient for you -- well, tough.