 |
 |
No-holds-barred abortion battle 'Personhood' amendment could ban some birth control, stem-cell research By Lisa Ryckman, Rocky Mountain News Saturday, November 24, 2007 It's known as the "Definition of a Person" in Colorado, the "Ultimate Human Life Amendment" in Mississippi, the "Paramount Right to Life Amendment" in Georgia and the "Personhood Amendment" in Michigan. In each case, the measure would change the state constitution to define a fertilized egg as a person entitled to constitutional protections of inalienable rights, justice and due process. And in every case, it's part of a no-compromise anti-abortion strategy that has created a deep divide between those state groups that want a direct attack on Roe v. Wade and those that prefer National Right to Life's incremental approach. But abortion-rights supporters and opponents agree that Colorado's "personhood" amendment would outlaw abortion and potentially have much broader effects. Toni Panetta, deputy director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, called the amendment the "latest volley in the death by a thousand paper cuts by anti-choice activists." She said the amendment potentially could outlaw any form of birth control that makes the uterus a hostile environment, including intrauterine devices and the "morning after" pill, as well as other oral contraceptives. Colorado Right to Life spokesman Bob Enyart said he thought it also could mean an end to embryonic stem-cell research. "The goal is to stop the killing of unborn children by reasserting the personhood of the unborn," he said. But Kristi Burton, the 20- year-old head of Colorado for Equal Rights, the group behind the initiative, refused to speculate on what might happen. "The goal is simply to define when life begins," she said this week after the State Supreme Court cleared the way for the measure by accepting the argument that it fit the definition of a one-issue initiative. "We'll see where it takes us." Political road ahead At least for the next six months, the amendment will take Burton and her supporters into the churches they plan to use as bases to collect the 76,000 signatures needed to put it on the November 2008 ballot. It will probably get there, said independent political analyst Eric Sondermann, but he predicted that it won't play well in a state where more than 60 percent of adults support abortion rights. "This one is a frontal assault on the right to choose," he said. "Every poll and analysis I've seen shows this is a pro-choice state. If you go at the very core of the right to choose without any exception, it's going to be a very tough political row to hoe." The measure represents a hard-line strategy by abortion opponents to overturn Roe v. Wade by zeroing in on what they consider a loophole in the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established abortion rights. "The (state of Texas and others) argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment," Justice Harry Blackmun wrote for the majority. "If this suggestion of personhood is established, (Roe's) case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment." The hope by anti-abortion groups is that such an amendment would be challenged up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which would uphold it, thereby affirming the "personhood" of the fertilized egg and effectively undoing Roe. But the strategy has created a rift between state groups and National Right to Life, which prefers to be more subtle. "National Right to Life is more in favor of the incremental approach, and they don't want people like us and people in the states to even do human life amendments," said Brian Rooney, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which gives free legal help to groups pushing "personhood" measures. "They believe it's not the right time. But we believe it's never the wrong time to do the right thing. The incremental approach has not stopped one abortion from happening." To abortion-rights activists, approach is irrelevant, Panetta said. "It doesn't matter whether they take on Roe in its entirety or chip away at the rights," she said. "Both attempts deny women the right to choose and access to safe medical care." An amendment similar to Colorado's is still alive in Georgia and Mississippi, but it died in the Montana legislature, failed to get enough signatures in Michigan and was tossed out in Oregon, where Thomas More attorneys have filed a lawsuit. In recent years, Colorado voters haven't been supportive of measures that limit abortion access. In 2006, backers of a proposal to ban late-term abortions failed to turn in signatures to place the measure on the November ballot. About 60 percent of voters in 2000 rejected Amendment 25, a measure to delay abortions 24 hours while women perused information on medical risks and other options. If Colorado voters were to pass a "personhood" amendment, they would be doing something that Justice Blackmun himself refused to do: pinpoint the moment life begins. "When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus," he wrote in Roe, "the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Proposed Initiative 36 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? * Supporters say: The amendment would be challenged in court and make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which would use it to overturn Roe vs. Wade. * Opponents say: The amendment is misleading because it fails to state its main goal, which is to outlaw abortion. It would open a Pandora's box of legal problems by giving fertilized eggs the right to access Colorado's courts. 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