Replies

“The amendment reads simply:

“In the great state of Nevada, the term ‘person’ shall apply to every human being.””

I’m a contributor to American Life League and a big fan of Judie Brown. However, I must say that if that amendment is adopted it would still allow judges to define what they believe is a “human being,” and they would not necessarily deem the unborn to belong. If judges can rule that an unborn baby is not a “person,” what makes you believe that they would not deem an unborn baby not to be a “human being”? And what about a Terri Schiavo situation in which the courts have ruled that she doesn’t have rights?

I know that Judie Brown has issues with the use of the words “conception” or “fertilization” as signaling the beginning of human life because some people could argue that “conception” implies implantation in the womb and that “fertilization” would somehow exclude test-tube babies. But having the amendment not state when personhood begins creates an even bigger risk of misinterpretation.

How’s this for the text of a personhood amendment?

“The term “person” as used in this Constitution shall apply to every member of the species Homo Sapiens commencing on the moment in which the spermatozoid fertilizes the ovum and ending on the moment of natural death.”

I believe that this hypothetical amendment would make it impossible for judges to interpret it to mean anything other than what it says.