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 ...
This is about the only thing I can feel good about in the last few weeks for the GOP and the pro-life movement.
Yea; Finally some good news politically coming out of Colorado (something has to be done to STOP the liberal tide, there..)!
I think if you have an accidental death two weeks after conception it wouldn’t be considered the same as intentional harm (murder) after conception.
A reasonable person might conclude that. But suppose there is a statistically significant correlation between certain strenuous physical activity and miscarriages within the first eight weeks of pregnancy, and the woman engages in those activities and suffers a miscarriage very early in her pregnancy. The issue then becomes whether a reasonable person would have known or should have known that engaging in that activity is likely to cause serious injury or death to an unborn person a few weeks after conception. At the very least, you have a jury question for an overzealous prosecutor.
“driving without a seat belt,”
She must wear a seat belt now.
Are we or are we not in favor of the viability of the fetus?
I think the legal motive would look for malicious intent, not “risk” or knowing risk unless that activity pretty close to 100% of the time causes harm such as illicit drug use or alcholism.
I think about a prosecutor with an agenda like the guy in Texas who went after Delay. A woman and her family shouldn’t have to spend their life savings to defend themselves against an overzealous prosecutor trying to sabatoge a constitutional amendment intended to protect the unborn from abortion.
What about legitimiate drugs that harm the fetus but help the mother? What if the mother has cancer and needs chemotherapy or she'll die. Chemo kills a fetus. But wait, under this law, the fetus is a person so killing the fetus would be murder. Under the law, you can't take one person's life to save another, so sorry, mom, you'll have to die of cancer (and probably your fetus with you).
It's a ridiculious example, but that's because this is a ridicuious proposal. Colorado would have to spend decades amending its statutes and changing case law to conform to this new definition and they'd still never get it right. Better just fight the fight head on and get Roe repealed. Like I said above, tricks like this just don't work.
I think (as I have stated in my previous post): The intent is what matters; if the mother (and doctor’s intent) isnt to kill the baby, but to save the life of the mother (and there is no way around it; it’s a hard choice, but..) it isn’t the same as a mother intentionally abortiong her healthy baby and having him murdered by a shameful abortion doctor!~..see my point?
I’ve tried for years to get right-to-life groups to use Roe to pass laws outlawing abortion after the 4th week of pregnancy. The child has its own distinct, human, DNA. He has his own blood and heartbeat, and starting in the 5th week brain waves.
DNA proves the baby is human and a separate unique human being. The brain waves and heartbeat show the baby is alive. In other words, modern science proves the personhood of the baby at 5 weeks of life. It’s just scientific fact.
Many women don’t even know for sure they are pregnant at 4 weeks. The vast number of abortions would be outlawed by Roe if states would just use science and the law as created by the Court in Roe.
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.