Posted on 07/25/2007 3:46:50 AM PDT by monomaniac
Colorado Pro-life Group Introduces Amendment Recognizing "Personhood" of Unborn Child
By Peter J. Smith
DENVER, Colorado, July 23, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-life leaders in Colorado are laying the groundwork to challenge the heart of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision with a constitutional amendment that would completely outlaw abortion by recognizing the personhood of the unborn child.
WorldNetDaily reports that the amendment proposed by Colorado Equal Rights would define "any human being from the moment of fertilization" as a "person" under article 2 of the state Constitution.
The title given to the proposed human life amendment reads: "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?"
"We're defining when personhood begins," Mark Meuser, spokesman for Colorado Equal Rights told WND. "In this state, there would be no abortions."
"Our goal is to take this all the way to the Supreme Court, and argue the personhood of the preborn baby. When we were writing this, we wanted to have a singular focus so that nobody is confused," Meuser said. "We want to force the argument that has been avoided for 34 years by the U.S. Supreme Court."
Meuser says that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision has a glaring weakness that for the past 34 years has not been exploited by the pro-life movement. In that decision, Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe wrote, "If this 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 pro-life initiative passed its latest challenge after the state's Title Board ruled 3-0 that the amendment successfully met Colorado's "single subject" rule and could not be construed as "misleading."
However the proposed human life amendment will likely face a court challenge from pro-abortion groups determined not to take any chances. If no appeal is made within seven days, Colorado for Equal Rights could begin to collect the 76,000 signatures they need to get the amendment on the ballot for 2008.
Meuser nevertheless told WND that he was confident that the human life amendment had a chance of success, but much would depend on the response of Catholics and Evangelicals and the collaboration of pro-life groups in Colorado.
"We wouldn't be doing it if we didn't think it could happen," Meuser said. "History shows if we are able to give our vision to evangelical Christians and Catholics, and show them that vision, they will turn out and this thing will pass."
See the original article on WorldNetDaily:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56764
More information on the proposed amendment and Colorado Equal Rights can be obtained from their website:
http://www.coloradoequalrights.com/
“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.”
Amendment XIV, 1868
1886- SCOTUS declares that corporations are persons.
1973-The court is informed “at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development.”(Roe v. Wade)
“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” (Roe v. Wade)
"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
Yes, unborn humans should have at least as many rights as unborn vultures/condors in our society.
So will every woman somehow be monitored so we know exactly when fertilization happens?
huh? Were this to pass there would be no need to monitor women, it would be illegal to kill an unborn person...
Its like saying because infanticide is illegal the state needs to monitor women who have infants every day..
Nope. The concentration camps (PP facilities) would be closed down for business. Abortion would simply be prohibited. The only reason for one is to kill an unborn person. We don't have to know who all is pregnant. we just have to know that the death camps are closed.
But without a way to monitor all women of child-bearing age there’s no way to tell if they have murdered a person for example by inducing an abortion at home, committing depraved indifference by drinking while pregnant, etc.
It’s also quite different from infanticide because a baby is there one day and gone the next, where at least a few people know about it. If a woman gets pregnant and decides to self-abort that’s still murder according to this amendment and she should be charged accordingly. But there’s no way to prove the unborn child even existed.
Nova,
No law is going to be perfect, if I can shoplift in secret does that mean shoplifting is not a crime?
What about those prom mom’s who, and for the life of me I don’t know how, conceal their pregnancy until delivery and leave the baby in a dumpster? if they are not caught have they not committed a crime?
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.