I understand the intent; however, the "intent" of any statute is one of the first things thrown out by lawyers applying a 'living Constitution' analysis. Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough for you. According to the article, the bill "would extend constitutional protection from the moment of conception with regard to rights of life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law." When there is a claimed necessity for those rights need to be enforced on behalf of persons unable to speak for themselves, such as the unborn, courts will appoint a lawyer to act on behalf of the voiceless. That lawyer's sole duty is to his client, in this case the unborn child, with NO regard for balancing others' rights (for example, the parents' rights). Calling those suits 'frivolous or agenda driven' merely labels them from your perspective while ignoring the fact that others will disagree and seek to enforce the "rights" that they think are correct. The merits of those lawsuits which would be in the hands of the lawyers and courts, not yours. Do you not know moonbat lawyers and judges?
Perhaps you are sanguine about another intrusion by the government into the rights of parents vs children, born or unborn. I am not comfortable with that approach. If the proposed initiative is intended to lay the groundwork for laws restricting or outlawing abortion, I think a better approach would be to address the specific issue of abortion, and not try a quasi-constitutional end-run by creating new classes of "persons" entitled to "rights," which themsleves would be newly-defined to meet the unique needs of this new class of the unborn. As a lawyer well acquainted with the legal thought process and the tools we employ, I see nothing but disaster in this initiative. Were I of the moonbat persuasion, I would be salivating at the opportunity to pursue this through the judicial system.
We didn’t think abortion could ever have been interpreted as “a right” until a court ruled it so.
All sorts of things thought ridiculous at one time are now legal.
Anyone for some sodomy? /end sarcasm
>> Perhaps you are sanguine about another intrusion by the government ... I am not ...
No need to be preachy and suggest I’m indifferent to Liberty. That’s quite a stretch given my rather inert remark.
The treatment of the unborn is subjective in the courts as one could legally kill the child through abortion and another prosecuted for man-slaughter or murder as the result of an assault on the woman carrying the child. The unborn is considered a ‘person’ in the latter case.
Again, I stated the ‘goal’ and not the ‘intent’. Your remarks address the potential abuse of such an initiative which would be far less harmful to the unborn than the act of an abortion. No less the politics that enable death by syringe can certainly come to the aid of those concerned with death by twinkie. I don’t find passage through the vaginal canal the determining characteristic that differentiates the life value of the unborn from that of the newborn. Why should “Life, liberty, equality of justice and the due process of law” be governed by the act of birthing? Are you saying that a 9 month prenatal is undeserving of the rights afforded to a newborn yet detached from its mother?