Colorado's Personhood Amendment

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 08:53:15 PM EST
Tags: Colorado, Personhood Amendment (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Colorado has 18 initiatives on the ballot this year, one of which is the dreaded Amendment 48, the Personhood Amendment. The Amendment reads:

"As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization,"

In other words, a fertilized egg would be deemed a person. The Denver Post, in an editorial today, urges voters to reject it.

The three sections mentioned are part of the state's Bill of Rights that protect our rights to life, liberty and property. Simply put, Amendment 48 asks that society grant a free-floating fertilized egg the same protections we enjoy as living Americans.

More...

The Post adds,

Medical and scientific experts set the start of pregnancy at the point a fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterus....Consider the fact that it is not unusual for a fertilized egg to naturally slip from the uterus without implanting. And even when implantation is successful, miscarriages often result in early stages of pregnancy.

The Amendment is an effort to defeat Roe v. Wade:

Amendment 48 is a mischievous attempt to ban abortion that would stand in clear contradiction to federal law. The debate over personhood was settled in 1973 by the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision on whether states could outlaw abortions. The court defined a fetus as a person if it developed into the third trimester and said states could not ban abortions of fetuses until that late stage in a pregnancy.

Amendment 48, on its own, will be a powerful motivator for evangelicals to come out and vote. But it could also energize pro-choice voters.

Just another reason (in addition to the ones I just wrote about here) Colorado is a hard state to predict this year.

< Another Look at Colorado Voter Stats | Late Night: Bill Clinton on Letterman >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Colorado's Personhood Amendment | 37 comments (37 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I think there's a lot of scope for. . (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 08:59:56 PM EST

creative mischief in this kind of law.

For instance, does Colorado have a child seat law requiring any child under the age of 4 to be in the back seat in an approved child restraint? 'Cause there could be an awful lot of tickets issued to pregnant drivers. . .

: They must stop driving (5.00 / 0) (#12)
by coigue on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:15:28 PM EST

and if they need medication, it had better be approved for infants.

[ Parent ]
: Good one! (none / 0) (#3)
by Key on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:01:23 PM EST

Yeah, that's the kind of absurd thing I wrote about in my post. Guess you posted yours while I was writing mine.

[ Parent ]

Okay, then.... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Key on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:00:08 PM EST

so would such a fertilized egg also qualify as a dependent for tax purposes?

I suppose parents could also sign the egg up for a CHIPS program. And perhaps get an increase in welfare payments?

What about a lifetime learning tax credit for music a parent buys to play for the egg? Never to young to get started on teaching kids music.

What other "benefits" could such a classification potentially yield?

What are the most absurd "benefit" you can come up with, to show just how absurd it is to call an embryo a person?

I haven't seen or heard or read... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:05:06 PM EST

...one single ad, either for or against this.

One can only hope that there are enough reasonable voters out there who understand this is an ill-conceaved, poorly thought out, problematic iniavtive drafted by a 19 year old religious fanantic. I think there are.

Oh, and the initiative process needs to be reworked or repealed. The State is not well served with the next generation of Coors telling us that unions are bad or BigGambling pushing higher limits. These issues should be decided by our legislators. Surely we pay them to do more than kick reporters in the knee.

My question has always been: (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Dalton Hoffine on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:06:42 PM EST

If an embryo is declared a person, does it have any rights? Aren't people United States citizens by BIRTH? Wouldn't the laws of the land and the Constitution not apply to them? While in the uterus, aren't they... floating entities with no national status?

Or are we going to change this to reflect something ridiculous like... if two people vacation in America and conceive a child while here... is that child the son or daughter of foreign nationals and an American citizen upon birth?

Deport them! Deport them! (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:12:29 PM EST

If they haven't been born, then they must be here illegally. Deport them and their criminal invasion furriner parents too!

Joking aside, it's an interesting question. Because, presumably, the point of conception would also have to be considered for purposes of citizenship, right? If a child were conceived in the United States but then traveled pre-natally, as a fully human person, to another country and was born there it wouldn't be fair for them not to be a citizen, would it?

So really all people would have to do is visit the US and have a baby somewhere between seven and ten months later to claim it was conceived in the US and should be granted citizenship.

[ Parent ]

Exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Dalton Hoffine on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:13:45 PM EST

We'd have to take it up with the Embryo Embassy, I guess.

[ Parent ]

: lol, Embryo Embassy (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Teresa on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:21:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Moreover (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Dalton Hoffine on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:12:35 PM EST

Would the embryos even be subject to the laws by which they are affected?

[ Parent ]

If they endanger the life of the mother (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by coigue on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:18:17 PM EST

they must be placed in jail?

[ Parent ]

: Could a pregnant woman be sentenced (none / 0) (#16)
by DFLer on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:38:28 PM EST

to jail, when that would also unfairly imprison the embryo?

[ Parent ]

PS. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:13:47 PM EST

Of course, Colorado state law would have no bearing on a federal issue like birth-right citizenship.

[ Parent ]

Damn (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by lambert on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:11:27 PM EST

I thought they were talking about corporate personhood -- as in abolishing it.

Which would be about the most pro-life measure I can imagine, come to think about it.

Zygotes of the world, unite! (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:41:03 PM EST

You have nothing to lose but your DNA!

I'm sorry about the snark, but if these anti-choice advocates cared as much about life outside the womb as they profess to do about the rights of the unborn, I might have some smidgen of sympathy for their arguments.

That said, those political busybodies who shed such crocodile tears for the unwanted fetus and discarded blastocyst adhere to the same political thought process as those people in the 1980s who applauded uproariously when President Reagan attempted to have catsup declared a vegetable in federally-funded school lunch programs.

God may well have a lot with which to be dismayed, but certainly none so much as the wanton hypocrisy of His self-righteous faithful.

Smells like 2004 (none / 0) (#11)
by coigue on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:14:28 PM EST

anti gay marriage law in Ohio.

I no like it.

Yeah, it's about bringing pro-life voters (none / 0) (#34)
by Realleft on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 09:03:24 AM EST

to the polls. What referenda do Dems have to bring people to the polls?

[ Parent ]

: I dunno (none / 0) (#37)
by coigue on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:28:37 PM EST

I don't know what they are doing in Colorado. It's not my state.

[ Parent ]

Colorado is a pro-choice state (none / 0) (#14)
by andgarden on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:20:28 PM EST

see here.

I don't think this is gonna pass.

Then again, as the great Coloradoan (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Cream City on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 10:01:38 PM EST

and former Congresswoman Pat Schroeder says:

"Back in the 70's and 80's we thought we had won the 'war' for women's equality. Now we know we just established a beachhead and every day there are folks undermining it."

She says it about the new book by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney -- a must-read for some of us. But the title is so telling this year about much that we will see on ballots, not only in CO but elsewhere as well:

Rumors of Our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated.

[ Parent ]

: yeah... (none / 0) (#20)
by coigue on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 10:06:11 PM EST

we have a parental notification law to vote on this time in CA.

[ Parent ]

wow! (none / 0) (#19)
by coigue on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 10:04:48 PM EST

silly me...I thought it was filled with disaffected Utahans forming their own little polygamist compounds.....and a few liberalized REI-loving cities.

[ Parent ]

Colorado's personhood amendment (none / 0) (#21)
by arguewithmydad com on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 10:12:57 PM EST

If a fertilized egg is a person in Colorado, shouldn't the parents receive a deduction from state taxes for this "person"?

Why bother being born? (none / 0) (#22)
by NealB on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 10:25:58 PM EST

Bit OT (none / 0) (#23)
by WakeLtd on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 10:49:42 PM EST

I was checking out some stats on Alexa yesterday. Wow, TL down 37%. Hard to imagine why.

Not really (none / 0) (#28)
by MKS on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 11:40:19 PM EST

Same as April....There was a spike in late May/early June.....

Been steady since with an uptick recently...

[ Parent ]

: Not what the stats there say (none / 0) (#29)
by Cream City on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:01:25 AM EST

I just looked it up.

[ Parent ]

We're higher than we were (none / 0) (#30)
by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:55:08 AM EST

before the primaries and the same as during the primary months except for spikes during debate and primary nights and the month of May when Hillary dropped out. Here's the chart.

What's decreased are the number of comments. Once the group of commenters that found TL and stayed because they liked having a civil place to discuss the primaries started hurling insults at Obama and his supporters after he became the nominee, they were no longer welcome here. I don't care what side people are on, but personal attacks and insults are not allowed.

So traffic and page views are up, comments are down. But people are still spending an average of 3 1/2 minutes per visit on the site (compared with less than 1 minute on the bigger sites) so it's all good.

[ Parent ]

way off topic (none / 0) (#31)
by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:57:07 AM EST

and I've answered, so get back on topic please.

[ Parent ]

Speaking of Coors, does this mean that (none / 0) (#24)
by Blowback on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 10:50:05 PM EST

any pregnant mother could be arrested TWICE for drinking? Once for her & embryo, I assume it is illegal for a pregnant mother to drink (health reasons for fetus), AND also for feeding alcohol to a minor? (Goes for pot too?)

: You know, all kidding aside (none / 0) (#25)
by befuddledvoter on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 11:05:20 PM EST

I was thinking about the potential for criminal charges if this ever came to pass. Drinking alcohol could be child endangerment, same with smoking (anything.) I think the implications as to state control of a woman's behavior far exceed the pro-choice/pro-life issue. I think it is about ultimate control of a woman.

[ Parent ]
: and if she was driving............................ (none / 0) (#26)
by Blowback on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 11:26:12 PM EST

she could be arrested 3 times!

[ Parent ]
: Of course. It already has happened (none / 0) (#27)
by Cream City on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 11:34:13 PM EST

in my state and other states, even without such a law. And women have been jailed until they come to term, to keep them from drinking, smoking pot, shooting up, etc.
Wow, some people here really don't realize how bad it is already.

[ Parent ]

So, I'm wondering (none / 0) (#32)
by LadyDem on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:28:55 AM EST

if a fertilized egg is a citizen, how will it use the touch screen voting machine? Will some political entity listen at mom's belly and interpret how it wants to vote?

And will it's vote cancel out the mother's?

This whole right-wing scenario is like something out of The Handmaid's Tale.

: I don't think an egg can vote yet. It's underage. (none / 0) (#33)
by Blowback on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:43:15 AM EST

18 years? It can't drink or drive, either. TG

[ Parent ]

Injecting religion into law (none / 0) (#35)
by nellre on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 11:21:39 AM EST

Injecting religion into law leads to silly laws.
Remember the blue laws? Some were funny!

Calling two cells a person would be funny if it did not have such an impact on women's rights.

Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life (none / 0) (#36)
by DianaHsieh on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:15:35 PM EST

Thank you for speaking out about Amendment 48!

You might be interested to read an issue paper recently published by the Coalition for Secular Government: "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person" by Ari Armstrong and myself. It's available at:

http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf

We discuss some of the serious implications of this proposed amendment, including its effects on the legality of abortion, birth control, and in vitro fertilization. And we offer a strong defense of abortion rights based on the biological facts of pregnancy.

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