Skip to comments.Unborn to be defined as 'persons'? Colorado proposal would use loophole Blackmun created in 'Roe'
Posted on 11/14/2007 12:25:41 PM PST by Caleb1411
Pro-life activists in Colorado have cleared a major hurdle in preparing an initiative for the 2008 election that would grant personhood to the unborn and create a possible confrontation to the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling that created abortion rights.
The state Supreme Court has granted permission for supporters of Colorado for Equal Rights to move forward with collecting the estimated 76,000 signatures needed to put the issue on the state election ballot.
It would grant personhood to the unborn from the moment of fertilization, meaning state and local laws protecting any individual life would be applied to the unborn. It targets a loophole U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun created when he wrote the original abortion opinion.
He concluded: "(If the) suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."
Several other states also are pursuing the same arguments, either through legislative efforts or, such as in the cases of Georgia and Colorado, through a process that would allow citizens to move forward with protections for the unborn.
Officials told WND the Colorado initiative would amend the state constitution in three places to redefine the term "person" to include those who are yet unborn.
The newest ruling from the state Supreme Court concluded the petition is a single-subject issue, as the state Title Board earlier had determined.
"We fully expected this positive decision from the Colorado Supreme Court. We are pleased that they supported the Title Board's previous decisions. Plans to begin our petition drive are under way," Kristi Burton, a spokeswoman for Colorado for Equal Rights, said.
Leslie Hanks, a longtime activist in the pro-life movement in Colorado, said the affirmation that all "persons" have
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Didn’t they charge Scott Peterson with the murder of his unborn son?
The pro-choicers love having it both ways.
Pro-Choicers will certainly want to set this effort aside so we can pursue “Comprehensive Abortion Reform”...
MAMA - Written by Jo Nuvark
Mama; Mama, dont blame me for your blues.
I may be inconvenient, but its much too late to choose.
Listen with your heart, youll hear my still small voice.
Let me live Ill be your life, your child not your choice.
Mama; Mama, give me time to work my charms.
When you see my face, youll know the place for me is in your arms.
Im not lonely just alone and looking forward to
The way youll hold me Mama just like God is holding you.
Like a summer breeze and the morning dove,
We were chosen for each other by the Lord of love.
Agreeing with each breath and sigh in unison,
Were two hearts beating rhythm as a single drum.
Mama; Mama, Im yours by Gods design.
Your custom composition, a clipping from His vine.
Eternally Hes known our names for such a time as this.
Fashioned for each others needs to cherish, love and bless.
Mama; Mama, if its hard to understand,
Just look at this from heaven, then youll see Gods plan.
Let my smile dance with yours. Let our songs be one voice.
Mama; Oh Mama, make me your choice.
—this will lose and it will take out a few more Republican legislators—
Every state should pass a similar law. If the laws are challenged, in federal courts, the judges should decide against hearing the cases. The 10th Amendment states that all powers that aren’t reserved for the federal government, in the Constitution, are reserved for the states or the people. Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, since few women wanted to kill their babies in the 1780’s, so federal involvement, in abortion, is unconstitutional.
Good. But it is still astonishing to me that this should even have to be debated.
Yes, Rep. Hunter has introduced his bill granting personhood at conception many times. Prayer is needed to see this comes into being in beautiful Colorado, as well as adopted by the U.S. Congress. GO DUNCAN HUNTER!
When attempting to use a logic trap on a leftist, you make the basic mistake of applying logical, linear, “if,then” reasoning.
To a leftist, they start with the desired outcome, then form their opinions about the “rules” with that outcome in mind. So, yes, the rules MUST be different in the case that you describe.
You prefer the feckless, accommodationist approach?
. . .It was the Roe author, Blackmun, who concluded: "(If the) suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."
"We must never forget that ending all abortions is the ultimate goal," he [Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center] responded. "Protecting innocent human life is not negotiable. It would be a tragic mistake to be content with a strategy that makes ending abortion secondary to other regulatory efforts, or worse yet, a strategy that avoids it altogether," he said.
"We are in this fight to win, not to go on in perpetuity, content with an occasional 'honorable mention,'" he said.
"A case must be presented to the United States Supreme Court that challenges the central premise of Roe that the unborn is not a person within the meaning of the law," he added.
First of all, if it were to pass, it would create a whole host of unintended and unforseen consequences. For example, if a fetus is defined as a person equal to all other persons under all Colorado laws, could not a pregnant mother be punished for doing anything that might harm the fetus: driving without a seat belt, smoking, eating poorly. That would be reckless endangerment. Do we want a whole new layer of nanny state government watching over every pregnant woman's actions?
And secondly, the public just doesn't go for changing things with legal "tricks" like this. Believe it or not, the American electorate is pretty sophisticated (we're a great country, what can I say?) and they understand that if we want to change the law on abortion, we should have that debate and change that law. So far (to my dismay), they haven't wanted to change that law (by amending the Constitution or electing a president and senate who will give us a foolproof anti-Roe court). But most attempts to do an end-run around things with tricky language fall flat. Fancy lawyering is just a bunch of words and the people don't go for that.
So, while I agree with the goal, I think this effort is misguided and bound to fail. JMHO
—the South Dakota experience over the last couple of elections proves you correct-—
Quoting Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center: "It is important to bear in mind that the proposal establishes a constitutional principle; it does not enact criminal or civil legislation. And it establishes a constitutional principle that provides a direct challenge to the fundamental holding of Roe v. Wade," he wrote. "Without a direct challenge to Roe, any proposal to protect innocent human life from abortion is utterly meaningless."
Beware of the law of unintended consequences. What happens, for example, if a woman engages in activities that result in a miscarriage before she even knew she was pregnant? Do you charge her with negligent homicide? What about women, who know they are pregnant, who engage in activities that increase the risk of miscarriage? If, in fact, a miscarriage occurs, are they guilty of criminally negligent or reckless behavior? And will th parents of unborn children have the right to claim an extra deduction on their state tax return?
If the decisions are entrusted to the respective states, where they rightfully belong, I simply can’t see these kinds of draconian punishments being enacted legislatively. If they were, then we’re just as likely to see criminal prosecutions of obese people, smokers, and drinkers, whose excesses shorten their own lives.
You would not have to change these types of state laws to produce draconian consequences. Once the state constitution is amended to declare that a person is created at conception, than that person has all the rights and priviledges of a person who has been born. And if a child dies two weeks after conception because of the reckless behavior of the mother, than I don’t see why you would have to change the law to prosecute her for negligent or reckless homicide. Seems to me you would have to change the law to protect the mother from prosecution and that may create a different set of unintended consequences.
What about women, who know they are pregnant, who engage in activities that increase the risk of miscarriage? If, in fact, a miscarriage occurs, are they guilty of criminally negligent or reckless behavior? Short answer, YES! You surely undersatand criminal negligence.
And will the parents of unborn children have the right to claim an extra deduction on their state tax return? In my opinion, so long as the IRS exists, YES, absolutely!
Conveying personhood upon the alive unborn will require a more specific use of existing laws. It will also stop in its tracks the obscene exploitation of embryo-aged humans now in practice and planned with such programs as embryonic stem cell exploitation and 'therapeutic cloning'. When applying the law may be difficult in some case, the law is not set aside to avoid the difficulty.
When the time comes as it surely will, when we face that awesome moment, the final judgment, I've often thought, as Fulton Sheen wrote, that it is a terrible moment of loneliness. You have no advocates, you are there alone standing before God and a terror will rip through your soul like nothing you can imagine. But I really think that those in the pro-life movement will not be alone. I think there will be a chorus of voices that have never been heard in this world but are heard beautifully and clearly in the next world and they will plead for everyone who has been in this movement. They will say to God, "Spare him because he loved us," and God will look at you and say not, "Did you succeed?" but "Did you try?"
~ Henry Hyde ~
Republican Congressman 1975 to 2006
Receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, November 5, 2007
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.