Vote no on 48
'Definition of Person' measure will be a box of surprises
Rocky Mountain News
Published September 22, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Video: Initiative sponsor Kristi Burton speaks in support of Amendment 48. Watch »
Video: Campaign Representative Fofi Mendez speaks against Amendment 48. Watch »
"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?"
If voters approve Amendment 48 this fall, they won't be able to claim later that they were confused by its language. After all, who could fail to understand the simple words quoted above? They're the amendment's biggest asset.
They're also the amendment's greatest liability.
In fact, although Amendment 48 may appear to be simple and straightforward, its actual impact is harder to forecast than for any other measure on the ballot - and we're talking about the most crowded document in nearly 100 years.
What Amendment 48 proponents would like to do, by their own admission, is outlaw all abortions. They can't do that by a state amendment, of course, so long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. And they know this. So Amendment 48 lays the foundation for outlawing abortions if Roe is ever overturned - assuming the measure is not struck down by the courts because of existing federal rulings.
Still, let's assume that the "Definition of Person" amendment is approved and survives court challenges. Does it exist then merely as a backstage presence, waiting for a signal that Roe has died before it strides forth and begins to transform state policy? Or would the amendment be used from the outset to regulate other areas, such as in vitro fertilization, stem cell research and even contraception?
Opponents contend that the second scenario is likely, with litigation occurring on a variety of fronts in an attempt to establish the newly minted legal status of fertilized eggs as "persons" with full human rights. We suspect they're correct.
Revealingly, the proponents of the amendment don't deny this possibility. Nor do they pretend to have any idea how such lawsuits might shake out.
We certainly don't accept every claim by the opponents. For example, they say - implausibly, in our view - that the amendment "could trigger investigations any time a woman has a miscarriage" and prevent women from receiving "life-saving medical treatment for a disease or condition like cancer if the treatment might harm a fertilized egg." But opponents do raise enough questions about the effect of the amendment on medical research, fertility clinics and certain forms of contraception that Coloradans should reject Amendment 48 even if they generally favor restrictions on abortion.
Kristi Burton, who helped write the amendment, freely admits she would outlaw abortion if she could but also says she'd like to get a fetal homicide law on the books in Colorado and faults the legislature for refusing to pass one. Well, why doesn't she bring a fetal homicide law directly to voters and let them decide rather than try to achieve the same goal indirectly? At least voters would know what they're being asked to support.
In the past, this editorial page has backed some restrictions on abortion, including rules on late-term abortions and measures to require parental notification when minors seek abortions. But we oppose Amendment 48. It not only attempts to go too far, it leaves voters guessing as to how far it would get. It is Election Day's version of a turn at the roulette wheel.
If you want to gamble this fall, we recommend a trip to Black Hawk or Central City. But don't gamble with Colorado's Constitution.
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.
September 22, 2008
12:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
MM2 writes:
Well, I see no reason why the comment section would turn into a massive set of angry posts and logical fallacies.
September 22, 2008
2:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
dianahsieh writes:
I'm glad to see RMN oppose Amendment 48.
Amendment 48 is a monstrous evil: it would do very real harm to very real people of Colorado by banning almost (if not all) abortion, outlawing the birth control pill, and banning most in vitro fertilization. It’s anti-life, by any rational standard.
For a detailed analysis of those legal consequences, 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’s available for download at:
http://www.SecularGovernment.us/docs/...
The simple fact is that fertilized eggs are not persons. They have no right to life. To attempt to grant them rights would require violating the rights of real people.
Diana Hsieh
Founder, Coalition for Secular Government
http://www.seculargovernment.us
September 22, 2008
5:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
ItsJustme writes:
Wow, two posts in and the pro-aborts are already redefining an obvious pro-life amendment into an anti-life one. Just, wow!
September 22, 2008
6:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
LetsThink writes:
How sad.
Has the RMN editorial staff ever voted to support a moral issue????
And some people still try to claim that our newspapers are not 'left' biased.
Hundreds of thousands of gullible readers are being indoctrinated.
September 22, 2008
8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
IVF_Dad writes:
As the father of an IVF baby, it is astounding to me that Kristi Burton and the far religious right want to criminalize the creation of a family. If Amendement 48 were to pass, and my wife and I were to try to have a second child in Colorado, we could be charged with MURDER. A murder charge for trying to have a baby. Sounds crazy but entirely true under this proposed constitutional amendment.
It would also outlaw embryonic stem cell research in the state. My mother died of cancer a few years ago and statistically I have a good likelihood of contracting the same disease. It is too late for my mother, but stem cell research presents the best opportunity to prevent me from succumbing to the same disease.
The extreme religious right feel like they are doing the right thing, but the are blind to the fact that this Amendment is in fact very anti-family. Amendment 48 would deny infertile couples the opportunity to have children and would also deny science that could save countless lives one day. For once I wish the far right would care more about the born than the unborn.
September 22, 2008
8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
IVF_Dad writes:
P.S. Don't forget that Referendum O would make it harder for extremist groups to monkey with the state constitution. Agree or disagree with the Amendment, this kind of thing belongs in state statutes, not the constitution.
September 22, 2008
9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Romulus writes:
The bible says nothing about this issue; we must rely on reason. Reason tells us there is a clear distinction between that which is actual and that which is merely potential. A caterpillar is not the same as a butterfly, nor is an acorn the same as an oak tree. Why, then, would anyone believe that a single cell at the moment of conception is the same as a human being? If you do hold such an opinion, it is your own personal religious belief which you have no right to force upon the majority of people who disagree with you.
September 22, 2008
10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
until someone from the anti-choice movement can justify their position that WON'T DECREASE ABORTIONS....i will remain against their dogmatic, counterproductive pursuits.
September 22, 2008
11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Thank God the RMN came out against Amendment 48. It's backhanded for one thing. They could have simply put a straightforward "abortion is hereby banned" amendment, then took their chances with the current US Supremes if it passed, but they're aiming higher by campaigning lower.
The RMN editorial board would consider other issues silly and frivolous, but beside the areas the RMN also mentioned, attornies could have a field day with pregnant women in prison, the national census, and a host of other issues if this amendment passed.
LetsThink, if you're so passionate, write a better amendment. In the meantime choose not to have an abortion. It's that simple.
September 22, 2008
11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
Vince and the board got this one right, if the dishonest supporters of Amendment 48 simply wanted to propose an abortion ban they could have done so. but still not without making a few bad mistakes in their logic.
"Amendment 48 lays the foundation for outlawing abortions if Roe is ever overturned"
No, Amendment 48 is a direct challenge to Roe, which is also one of the proponents’ stated goals. In the Roe decision, Justice Blackmun wrote “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” Establishing personhood is a frontal assault on Roe, as it doesn’t rely on attacking the notion of privacy that is implied but not specifically stated in the Constitution.
Claiming that amendment 48 would lurk in the background as a “trigger” law waiting for Roe’s repeal is constitutional ignorance. Even assuming there was no challenge from Pro-Choice groups (there would be), doctors would demand one as there is otherwise massive ambiguity in how this would impact medical care. The state Attorney General would be required to defend the amendment, and it could go as far as the SCOTUS, to determine if states have the individual right to determine for the sake of the application of their laws, who the term “person” applies to. The federal constitution is silent on the matter, though it does recognize several rights and privileges based upon the time and place of birth. The state will be forced to spend millions in legal fees as doctors and patients in Colorado wait to hear how the routine medical care they depend on will be effected.
September 22, 2008
11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
‘We certainly don't accept every claim by the opponents. For example, they say - implausibly, in our view - that the amendment "could trigger investigations any time a woman has a miscarriage" and prevent women from receiving "life-saving medical treatment for a disease or condition like cancer if the treatment might harm a fertilized egg." “
If a fertilized egg is a person, a miscarriage becomes a reportable death. Failing to follow prescribed treatment, or drinking or smoking something that could increase the chances of a miscarriage potentially become child abuse. The people of Kansas have seen what an overzealous prosecutor who is obsessed with abortion can do. “Prosecutorial discretion” is not a phrase that I or any other doctor would want to weigh in on how we treat our patients.
As for the skepticism about rendering life-saving treatment, what statute is it that allows one, regardless of how well intentioned, to purposely take the life of a “person” to save another? It doesn’t exist. Removing an ectopic pregnancy that threatens a woman’s life, or starting treatment for cervical cancer that could lead to the loss of a pregnancy before fetal viability, are only two of many situations I could think of in which best medical care would be jeopardized by the unalienable rights this amendment grants to that “person.” The last things doctors and patients need when making life and death decisions is more lawyers. If you think the fear of liability lawsuits drives up the cost of medicine, wait until you see how doctors practice when they’re afraid of criminal prosecution.
Amendment 48 is an extreme measure that would permanently change the Colorado Constitution, affecting thousands of laws, in such a way as to lay the legal foundation for criminalizing routine medical practice. It would insert the government, lawyers and courts into the private doctor patient relationship, where important life decisions are made on a daily basis.
September 22, 2008
1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Andy writes:
"Since we are so uncaring about the pre-AND-post birth mistreatment of the most vulnerable Americans,those who get their sexual gratification from children have been able to form a coalition that now credibly advocates for the legitimization of sex between adults and children."
Are you arguing that pedophilia and abortion are directly related? That's a new one. Maybe you ought to outline your argument there.
September 22, 2008
2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
oma writes:
what planet are you from, jimminy??
September 22, 2008
2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Jimminy, I realize the civilized response to you is silence, but your absurd comments can't go ignored. I've worked with GLBT advocacy groups for over two decades. No one, to my knowledge, has ever advocated for non-criminal prosecution of pedophiles. Why don't you stop watching preachers who spread lies, distortions, and group libels? Other than in the fevered imagination of self-righteous abortion foes, homosexuality and abortion have nothing to do with each other.
September 22, 2008
4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
OldSailor writes:
I think Romulus has made the most logical post here.
September 22, 2008
5:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
where do they come up with such stuff? I knew the general population as of late has gotten dumber, but having the public vote on a issue that can't be proven either way is crazy. making them the morality police. Too many nuts out there called preachers....
September 22, 2008
9:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
leslieforlife writes:
Back in the 1960s before Planned Parenthood realized that using scientific truths in its literature would lessen its revenue, it was halfway honest.
A 1963 Planned Parenthood brochure actually says "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun." That's something we pro-lifers didn't start saying en mass until years later!
A book from 1969 reviewed below states: "... at least one [sperm] will reach the egg, fertilize it, and conception will take place. A new life will begin."
September 22, 2008
9:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
youme writes:
this is a distraction issue vote your feelings but dont get stuck
September 22, 2008
11:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Raemid writes:
MM2 for president!
September 23, 2008
12:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
DJ writes:
Bobby_Jones: You ought to go out and buy an actual newspaper from the stand. It’s a great thing. It’s made of thin pages covered with black (sometimes colored) ink. There’s a section in nearly every newspaper across the land called Editorials and Opinions. The newspapers have EVERY RIGHT to make their opinion known in that section. I’ll bet if they agreed with you, you wouldn’t want to take that right away from them.
To all of you who claim to have God on your side: If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. If you don’t have a womb, your opinion doesn’t count.
To All Irritated or Flabbergasted by Jimminy’s astoundingly pious ignorance: He’s got severe self-esteem issues. I’ve never read a post from him that stays on-point, isn’t peppered with ultra-personal jabs and isn’t smothered in demeaning, bigoted references. He’s definitely got a dictionary but doesn’t use his vast vocabulary for good. He uses it to try to cut others characters down because he has none. I’ve suggested self-esteem building workshops at the local community college but his parents won’t let him out of their basement for fear he’ll embarrass the whole family. Uh-oh, too late.
Making an act illegal doesn’t make it go away. It creates criminals. Prohibition didn’t make alcohol go away. The War On Drugs hasn’t made drugs go away. Declaring a fertilized egg a person wouldn’t make abortion go away. Everyone’s goal is to reduce the number of abortions. We’ll accomplish that through education not legislation.
September 23, 2008
4:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Pagen writes:
DJ,
You are right on! I was listening to the arguement on this issue on the radio the other day and the woman who was the spokesperson against this issue said that if this law came to pass then even women who had a tubular pregnacy couldn't have it removed, therefore she would die from the pregnacy. I just recently had a friend that had a tubular pregnacy and they had to stop the pregnacy for her life. She has a son and 2 daughters already, I couldn't imagine what it would have been like if she was just left to possibly die. What about her children that would have to go without their mother. Over 7000 doctors in this state are protesting this because of what this would cause. What about the womens lives that are going through all these issues. I think right to lifers have gone to far. Just chalk this up to another fanatical "religion". There is a reason for Roe v Wade and it's to save the lives of the women that are already here. I am for freedom of choice. We should have a choice, after all it is our bodies.
September 24, 2008
12:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
DJ writes:
The education to which I refer is sex education and birth control education not educating someone on Jimminy’s opinion. And yes, abortion is ending a life, but it’s not a viable life. As long as it’s in my body, relying on my body (my body is its life support system usually until the third trimester) it’s my call to make. We all have our faults and we’ll all get the chance to pay for them in the end. You’ll pay for yours and I’ll pay for mine. That’s how it is and how it must be. You don’t get a break on yours by trying to fix mine. Every moment you’re trying to fix me is a moment you could be making yourself better. It’s human nature to want to make the world around us more beautiful any way we can, however we perceive beauty. More benefits are reaped when we apply that effort to beautify the world while looking in the mirror.
September 24, 2008
4:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"What we intend to change is the law-by any means necessary."
maybe you can answer a question from which so many have run in the last couple of days, jiminy.
why would you take a position that won't reduce abortions?
September 26, 2008
3:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
tromiano writes:
People can be declared legally dead in our society when brain function ceases; how about declaring them legally alive when brain function begins? Depending on who you talk to, this happens some time between weeks 5 and 10 of a pregnancy. So, say we split the difference and consider life to begin some time during week seven: this would justify stem cell research, 'morning after' contraception, and IV fertilization (by the way, IV parents recognize the value of life far more than most).
The seven week threshold would certainly not satisfy people like Kristi Burton, nor would it satisfy radical pro-choicers. However, it would probably satisfy the majority of Americans, assuming there are other clauses such as in cases rape, incest, risking life of the mother, or even a severe birth defect in the child.
October 7, 2008
2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
lovinglife writes:
If you look at the statistics of abortion, only 1% of abortions are because of rape or incest. 97% are simply because of inconvenience to the mother and 46% of them have had more than one. When do we draw a line to women killing babies simply because they don't feel like having the baby? I am pregnant with my third kid and I don't understand how any self respecting mother would think abortion is right. As soon as I found out I was pregnant (at 5 weeks) I considered the baby growing inside of me a person.
October 10, 2008
6:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
hunterman writes:
"When do we draw a line to women killing babies simply because they don't feel like having the baby? "
When it's your own body.
Any more stupid questions?
October 13, 2008
5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Derge writes:
Here's my analysis of 48
* It does not criminalize abortion.
* It allows charges to criminals who harm a pregnant woman. At this time the laws are ambivalent to whether a person is charged with an additional count. Example: Drunk driver hits, kills a pregnant woman. Child dies. Woman doesn't. No manslaughter charges can be filed.
* It allows the father a choice. Right now, if a man doesn't want the child, he has no say. If he does, he has no say. Yet after birth society expects the father complete responsibility.
* Abortion should be allowed for rape/incest/mother's heath. Statistically these occurances are non-existent.
Abortion has been abused: 2/3rds are white women, occuring between 15-24. Majority in middle-high income brackets.
Spare me the 'poor minority who cannot take care of her children' rhetoric. These are white suburbans females who believe fixing a 'mistake' is taking an unborn life.
Given medical care, a fetus can survive outside the womb after 4.5 months.
Besides, many surveyed felt 'rushed' into abortion. 2/3rds again encouraged by parents or social workers.
THAT is sickening.
October 13, 2008
5:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Derge writes:
"When do we draw a line to women killing babies simply because they don't feel like having the baby? "
hunterman writes:
When it's your own body.
Any more stupid questions?
* * How is that stupid? Might as well kill toddlers also. It's the womans choice, right? By golly, choice is so important, we should just kill about anything we want, now shall we?
If the choice is -only- the mothers, then the father shouldn't be held fully responsible to any outcomes if he wants an abortion and she doesn't. Remember; it's the woman's choice, but the man's wallet.
October 17, 2008
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
ILoveChipotle writes:
Tromiano writes "People can be declared legally dead in our society when brain function ceases" - so most of these anti-life liberals are technically dead...
October 19, 2008
7:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reason writes:
"If you don’t have a womb, your opinion doesn’t count."
Wow, I wasn't aware that women could now reproduce independently of men, I think we may have an amazing evodevo development here.
Would I be correct in assuming that you also oppose court-enforced child support mandates, seeing as how you've made this amazing biological discovery?
October 24, 2008
12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
walong writes:
The Rocky's opposition to 48 amounts to either of two possibilities:
(a) They consider an unborn person not to be a "human being". This is directly refuted by modern embryology. Is there any "science" to support their position, or are they just spouting a subjective opinion, while human lives are being destroyed?
-or-
(b) A human being at any age (unborn being the most convenient) can legally be declared a non-person and thus denied all rights including the right to live. This opposes the Constitution and decades of civil rights advancements. But human rights be damned, it is a great convenience to the multi-billion dollar abortion industry.
Which is it, Rocky?
Either way, 48 is needed to protect human rights and human lives.
November 4, 2008
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
ConservativeCO writes:
Support 48.
November 5, 2008
6:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverTea writes:
48 went down in flames because the women of Colorado and apparently a good share of the men said no to religious zealots and control freaks and yes to self worth and women's rights. Thank you Colorado.
November 5, 2008
9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
UNV_ME writes:
You can argue all you want. Simple fact is...abortion is and always will be a choice. No person can force their beliefs on anyone. A woman's right to choose will always be that... her right... not anyone else's. Not some male politician, nor religious wack job. This is a personal choice... as in you will never have a say about what a woman can do and can not do with her own body.
Neither science nor religion make any difference.
November 5, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
The voters made it pretty clear they wanted nothing to do amendment. If only this landslide victory would prevent the zealots from trying again...