"Persons" under the 14th Amendment are legally entitled to due process,
equal
justice and protection by the Constitution. How would it be possible to
confer these rights on a blastocyst?

The 14th Amendment was designed to confer rights on former slaves, but in
the late 19th century it was used to
protect corporations which were defined by the Supreme Court as "persons",
Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad 1886
and a total of  288 cases between 1890 and 1910 (uncluding the famous
Sherman Anti-trust Act 1890) declared corporations to be persons. Only 19
14th amendment cases  mentioned blacks.

A present day Supreme Court could do the same thing by defining a zygote as
a
person.  Please read Don's article below to understand why Alitos and
Roberts are poor SC choices.

Ray

# 416 Tuesday, February 11, 2008 -  "PERSONHOOD" LAWS THREATEN RESEARCH,
WOMEN'S RIGHTS

Like the 18th Amendment, (Prohibition) which was intended to eliminate
alcohol abuse and instead gave us organized crime, some proposed laws may
have consequences far beyond their advertising.

For example, suppose we had a 100% Pro-Life Amendment, defining all life as
equally deserving of legal protection. That sounds noble, doesn't it?

But we would starve if it was enforced. Even vegetables have life. Who
knows, perhaps even a carrot gives a tiny shriek of agony when being yanked
from the soil. Meat, of course, would be out of the question, as animals
would have the right to an attorney.

And what about the military? If all life was equally protected, our soldiers
would have to go on trial any time they fired their weapons successfully--
even an enemy has a life.

Am I being ridiculous?

Not if you consider the "personhood" laws currently under consideration in
at least six (reportedly as many as twelve) states.

Ballot initiatives and/or laws in various stages of consideration in
Colorado, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Georgia, and South Carolina are
attempting to redefine human life ("personhood") as deserving of legal
protection: beginning at fertilization.

The instant a microscopic sperm meets an egg, a legal person suddenly
exists, with rights in court, and equal standing under law.

The primary goal of "personhood" laws is to criminalize abortion: forcing
the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V. Wade.

Their approach is predicated on a statement made by U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Harry Blackmun:

"(If the) suggestion of personhood is established, the case, of course,
collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by
the (14th) Amendment."

If we agree to call all blastocysts full human beings, we forever deny a
woman's right to choose, and to control her own body.

 There would be other consequences as well.

If blastocysts are assigned full "personhood", embryonic stem cell research
is automatically endangered; as is the birth control pill, and the In Vitro
Fertility procedure.

Let's take a look at Colorado's measure, probably the furthest along.
Signatures are already being gathered (76,000 needed) to put the measure on
the November ballot.

It is brief, just one sentence:

"Colorado Human Life Amendment: 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."

That's it, the whole proposal. But it would have far-reaching consequences.

"The amendment, if approved by voters, would extend constitutional
protections from the moment of conception, guaranteeing every fertilized egg
the right to life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law." -
www.denverpost.com  Electra Draper, 11/14/2007

The initiative's sponsor?  Kristi Burton is 20 years old. Home-schooled, Ms.
Burton graduated high school at age 15. At 17, she enrolled in a
religion-based correspondence law school.

".The people of Colorado will support protecting human life at every stage.
More than that, we have God. And He is enough", she stated to thunderous
applause at a recent meeting of the Pro-Life Leaders Summit.

To hear her speaking, go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHxH40aDlHE

Belinda Burger, deputy legal director for NARAL Pro-choice America, calls
the personhood approach "scarier than an outright ban. First, because it can
be hard for people to understand what it's doing, and second, because it
would be. further reaching." (NY Times, Nov. 18, "Proposed Colorado measure
on Rights for Human Eggs", Kirk Johnson)

Do such measures have any backing?

Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee: "In keeping with my consistent support
for life, I .support the Georgia Personhood Amendment."  --"Georgia Right to
Life PAC Endorses Mike Huckabee for President", Dawson Times, Dec. 1, 2007

Other Presidential candidates, in and out of the race, who support the
personhood concept:  Alan Keyes (Republican), Peter Grasso (Independent),
Duncan Hunter (Republican), and Ron Paul (Republican).

What does this mean to us, as stem cell research advocates?

I regard it as the last gasp of the anti- research crowd, trying desperately
to stop embryonic stem cell research before the next President (and a
stronger pro-research Congress) comes into office.

Whatever your position on abortion (I am against it, but feel it is the
woman's business, not mine or government's, which makes me pro-choice) this
would be a devastating law.

Consider:

If a blastocyst has equal legal rights in a court of law, birth control
pills could be considered murder weapons.

The attempt for couples to have a child through the In Vitro Fertility
process would be illegal- and what would be done about the 450,000
blastocysts currently in frozen storage? The "adoption" alternative has thus
far been chosen for about one hundred-what about the other 449, 900? These
would have to be stored for all eternity, or their donors could face
prosecution; not to mention criminalization of the IVF procedure which has
brought joy to more than a million new families around the world.

The personhood initiatives would provide legal footing to still more
lawsuits against California's stem cell program, like the earlier one on
behalf of "Jane Doe", a fictional frozen embryo-and this time it could go
all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Roberts Court, certainly one of
the most conservative in history.

Personally, I have had just about enough delays, enough law suits, enough
attempts to crush out embryonic stem cell research.

I want the search for cures to go forward, not be frozen in fear of
criminalization.

In a few short months, we will have a more supportive President, and new
reasons for hope.

Until then, "Personhood" laws must be vigorously opposed.

South Carolina: H.3284/S.313 "Right to Life Act" TO AMEND TITLE 1, CHAPTER
1, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF
GOVERNMENT, BY ADDING ARTICLE 5 SO AS TO ENACT THE "RIGHT TO LIFE ACT OF
SOUTH CAROLINA" WHICH ESTABLISHES THAT THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND THE
RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION VEST AT FERTILIZATION.

Georgia: HR 536: A RESOLUTION proposing an amendment to the Constitution so
as to provide that the paramount right to life is vested in each human being
from the moment of fertilization without regard to age, race, sex, health,
function, or condition of dependency; to provide for submission of this
amendment for ratification or rejection; and for other purposes.

Michigan: Michigan Prenatal Child Protection Amendment: Section 27: "A
'person', for purposes of the Constitution and laws of the State of
Michigan, exists from the point of conception."

Mississippi: "Ultimate Human Life Amendment" PROPOSED BALLOT SUMMARY:
Initiative #23 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to require legal
recognition that human life begins and is protected at the moment of
conception, and to forbid taking the life of a person by aiding a suicide
attempt or by depriving an unborn person of life. 'Person' would be defined
(without regard for conditions such as race, sex, age, health, function or
dependency) to include all stages of biological development from conception
until natural death.

Montana: CI-100, the Montana Personhood Amendment. (44,615 signatures needed
to qualify for November, 2008 ballot):
CI-100 amends the Montana Constitution's Declaration of Rights to provide
that all persons have a paramount and
fundamental right to life. It extends constitutional rights to all persons
from the moment of conception. It adds a  definition of "person" that
includes all stages of development, including fertilization.
Colorado Human Life Amendment: "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."

Don Reed
www.stemcellbattles.com


Don C. Reed is co-chair of Californians for Cures, and writes for their web
blog, www.stemcellbattles.com. Reed was citizen-sponsor for California's
Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act of 1999, named after his
paralyzed son; he worked as a grassroots advocate for California's Senator
Deborah Ortiz's three stem cell regulatory laws, served as an executive
board member for Proposition 71, the California Stem Cells for Research and
Cures Act, and is director of policy outreach for Americans for Cures. The
retired schoolteacher is the author of five books and thirty magazine
articles, and has received the National Press Award.

Rayilyn Brown
Board Member AZNPF
Arizona Chapter National Parkinson's Foundation
[log in to unmask]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn