Posted on 07/06/2007 7:24:11 PM PDT by kellynla
A team of Coloradans wants to exploit a loophole in the Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned state laws banning abortion – by simply stating that an unborn child, from the moment of fertilization, is a person.
In a comprehensive plan that would ban all abortions, the Colorado Equal Rights organization is trying something that hasn't been accomplished – yet – in the battle against abortion.
Noting Colorado was the first state to legalize abortion, due to the work of ex-Gov. Dick Lamm, then a state lawmaker, Meuser told WND, "We should be the first state to turn around and acknowledge our mistake and grant personhood to the unborn."
The state's Legislative Council already has approved the wording of the proposal, which would read:
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado: SECTION 1. Article II of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read: Section 31. Person defined. 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. Meuser said the council asked a series of questions about the proposal and its expected impact.
"Our purpose is to protect all life and, thus, we want to start at the moment life actually begins," he told the group.
"The Legislative Council also asked what the effect of the amendment would be on the 'undue burden' test as established in Roe v. Wade," he reported.
He explained that the court created that test "because they could not find that 'person' was defined for state or national constitutional purposes."
"Because our amendment defines life as beginning at fertilization, it makes the 'undue burden' test a moot issue," he said.
Aiming for the 2008 ballot, he said he wants to work with a coalition of groups to collect the 76,000-plus signatures needed to put it on the ballot.
"We're in the process of talking with all the groups, letting them know what the vision is and how we plan to go about it," he said.
He said a team of abortion promoters also listened to his presentation to the state board, but the avenue he's using will leave little recourse if successful.
"I've read that decision multiple times. I've listened to the actual oral arguments. I'm very familiar with the loophole that was created in Roe v. Wade. We're attacking it. Why have we waited 30 years to attack the weakness the enemy showed us?" he said.
The new definition of person specifically would be applied to sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution.
Those sections confirm that all "persons" have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, including "the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties," that courts of justice shall be open to every "person," and no "person" shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
In Georgia, state Right to Life spokesman Dan Becker said the goal of that legislative plan is the same: no abortions, no exceptions. Not even rape and incest.
The precedent-setting plan already is on track to be presented to voters as a constitutional amendment as early as next year.
"The whole sanctity of life cause is based on Genesis 1:26-28, where it talks about man is created in the image of God and has worth at all levels," Becker said. "Hence, we are working at a state level for a paramount human life amendment to our constitution."
The Georgia plan was written by the Thomas More Law Center, which advocates for pro-life causes:
"The rights of every person shall be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life. The right to life is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person. With respect to the fundamental and inalienable rights of all persons guaranteed in this Constitution, the word 'person' applies to all human beings, irrespective of age, race, sex, health, function, or condition of dependency, including unborn children at every state of their biological development, including fertilization." "If we're consistent with God's position in his Word, we expect him to fight our battles for us," Becker said. "We've seen success after success, and we can't claim that's due to outstanding organization or increased funding, even though all of that's true.
"It is the only way we're going to bring before the Supreme Court the issue of personhood. It's a subject they have dodged for the last 30-plus years. It's an issue that needs to be addressed," spokesman Mark Meuser told WND.
The "hole" in Roe v. Wade is the little-publicized comment from Justice Harry Blackmun, author of the 1973 opinion, in which he noted, "[If the] suggestion of personhood [for the unborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."
The same approach, Meuser said, was attempted in Michigan, where not enough signatures were verified, and is in process in Mississippi. In Georgia, as WND has reported, lawmakers are reaching for the same goal through a legislative process.
ping
I don’t know who has the “Pro-Life” ping list.
Cool. I like Hunters steamrolling method even better:
Hunter Reintroduces Legislation to Protect Unborn
http://www.house.gov/list/speech/ca52_hunter/Right_Life_Release.shtml
Lamm? Isn't he the guy who wanted to kill old people, too?
yitbos
And ALL those fertilized eggs in fertilty clinic petri dishes will also be persons.The practice of discarding the “extras” should be no less repugnant than any other abortion.
Oddly,the position of the Catholic Church has been fairly clear and consistent.
What’s so odd about the Church’s consistency on the sanctity of life?
wagglebee has a Moral Absolutes ping.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
For those who believe human life BEGINS at conception, the last 34 years has been a nightmare.
A right to life amendment to the US Constitution is a necessity.
We’ve taken a step in that direction in several states where someone like this Cutts creep is charged with two counts of murder — one for killing an unborn child. Now, if killing the unborn is murder, then they must be persons. Right?
Yes. He said they "have a duty to die and get out of the way." He also tried to run for President on the Reform Party. Say, how old is Dick Lamm these days?
And even on that basis, it collapses. If we don't know when life begins, then we don't know that it doesn't begin at conception. And if we can't establish that it doesn't begin at conception, we have a duty to treat it as if it does. If we're wrong, no harm done. If we'r right, we'r saving human lives.
The Declaration of Independence pretty much covers it...Life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?? Once “Life” has begun, at conception, there are two sets of genes present. It’s no longer all about “her body”.
Missouri did this a long time ago. See below.
Life begins at conception—unborn child, defined—failure to provide prenatal care, no cause of action for.
1.205. 1. The general assembly of this state finds that:
(1) The life of each human being begins at conception;
(2) Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being;
(3) The natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn child.
2. Effective January 1, 1988, the laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States Supreme Court and specific provisions to the contrary in the statutes and constitution of this state.
3. As used in this section, the term “unborn children” or “unborn child” shall include all unborn child or children or the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development.
4. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.
(L. 1986 H.B. 1596)
Pro=Life ping, allert the rest of the list ;).
My Christian family uses the pill. Not going to be acceptable when the fertilized egg can’t attach. Thank God! Can’t wait to hear the joy of baby’s giggling and children OUTSIDE playing. I worry about them, though. This world has really gone downhill since we allowed the deaths of the unborn. Will we be able to broadcast the message to the MASSES that each and every person is valuable, created in the image of God, and is priceless? You see, when a person views only his own rights as an individual, he becomes selfish, but when he sees his own value as a human, then all humans are valuable.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. - the Fourteenth Amendment
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - the Preamble to the United States Constitution
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." - the Declaration of Independence
Aren’t states allowed to recognize medical licenses?
Can’t a state simply refuse to accept the medical license of a doctor that does abortion? It is, after all, a medical procedure.
There was a similar law in Missouri and that didn't make any difference with abortion laws there. It was used in a different case, however. Some lawyer defending a 20 year old for drunk driving tried to argue that since life started at conception then his client should not have been charged with underage drinking and driving but should instead have been charged under the more lenient adult laws. That didn't work either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.