Posted on 12/09/2007 6:10:31 AM PST by rhema
Opening a new front in their assault on abortion, activists in half a dozen states are preparing ballot referendums that would grant "personhood" and constitutional rights to embryos from the moment of conception.
The drive is under way in Colorado, where activists have begun gathering signatures for an initiative, and Georgia, where the Legislature will take up the issue when it reconvenes in January. Abortion opponents in Montana, Oregon, Mississippi and Michigan are among those considering similar measures.
The new strategy takes an idea that has been central to the pro-life movement - that human life begins when an egg is fertilized - and makes it the centerpiece of state efforts to overturn women's legal right to an abortion. If the embryo is declared a person under a state's constitution, the reasoning goes, the termination of its existence must be considered murder.
It's not a new way of framing the anti-abortion argument. For more than 25 years, anti-abortion groups have tried to advance the idea that life begins at conception through proposed federal legislation, to no avail. But now, some activists have decided to make the "personhood" issue the rallying point for abortion battles in the states.
"This is a foundational issue for us: it addresses every issue we care about," said Daniel Becker, president of Georgia Right to Life.
He said the goal is to introduce "personhood" referendums in as many as 30 states in the next several years. Anti-abortion activists face an uphill battle. Most Americans support the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy in the first trimester, albeit with some restrictions. And many legal scholars believe granting constitutional rights to embryos would result in a host of unwanted legal consequences.
Faced with substantial opposition, proposed "personhood" bills failed to make their way through legislatures this year in Montana, Virginia, South Carolina and North Dakota, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights.
The new strategy is designed to bypass legislative opposition by taking the issue directly to voters. However, if a constitutional amendment passes in any state, legislation still would be needed to translate the "personhood" principles into laws protecting embryos and fetuses.
Many hope the result will be a case that can be brought before the Supreme Court, challenging the legal right to an abortion enshrined in the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
"I can't think of a better time than right now to bring the issue forward," said Robert Muise, trial counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, an anti-abortion legal group in Ann Arbor, Mich., that is advising activists across the country on the measures. "I think the Supreme Court as currently constituted would say, 'Leave it to the states.' "
In Roe, Justice Harry Blackmun famously opined, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins," citing the lack of consensus among philosophers, theologians and medical experts. But the court added that "the word 'person,' as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn."
The new "personhood" strategy highlights the rift between "purists" and "incrementalists" within the anti-abortion movement. While purists are eager to launch full frontal attacks on abortion, incrementalists prefer to gradually chip away at abortion rights while trying to change public opinion.
Generally, incrementalists consider the new strategy too risky. Their concerns are outlined in an 11-page memo dated Aug. 7 from an Indiana law firm, Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom, which is closely associated with the National Right to Life Committee. The Chicago Tribune received a copy of the memo from a Colorado anti-abortion activist who opposes the committee's incremental approach.
"The Supreme Court's current makeup assures that a declared federal constitutional right to abortion remains secure for the present. This means now is not the time to pass state constitutional amendments or bills banning abortion," the memo states.
Indeed, such attacks on abortion could take "much-needed resources and attention away from other types of laws that could protect women and their unborn children immediately," said Denise Burke, legal director of Americans United for Life. David O'Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life Committee, said his organization was "not involved" in the proposed constitutional referendum.
For their part, abortion-rights groups take the threat posed by the new anti-abortion strategy seriously.
"I think what you're seeing is frustrated pro-life activists saying: 'We've waited too long for change. It's time to try something else,' " said Ted Miller, spokesman with NARAL Pro-Choice America.
His group is concerned that voters will be confused by the language of proposals in Colorado and other states that doesn't specifically mention abortion but talks generally about defining "personhood" as beginning at the moment of fertilization. Many people won't understand the potentially profound consequences, Miller said.
Last month, however, the Colorado Supreme Court dismissed NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado's objection to the "personhood" initiative, ruling unanimously that the measure was clear and could be placed on the ballot if it gathered the requisite 76,000 voter signatures.
Others warn that granting "personhood" and full legal rights to embryos and fetuses could have consequences extending well beyond abortion to areas such as birth control and assisted reproduction.
Any contraceptive that interfered with the ability of a fertilized egg to implant in the womb could be considered person-destroying and banned, reproductive-rights groups suggested. Examples include intrauterine devices and birth-control pills, which may affect implantation in some cases.
It's no secret that a segment of the anti-abortion community is adamantly opposed to birth control. But any ban would run up against the federal right to contraception, established in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and later Supreme Court cases.
Also, the entire enterprise of in-vitro fertilization - which involves creating embryos in laboratories for couples trying to conceive - could be brought to a halt if these embryos were deemed to be people with legal rights, others suggest.
With in-vitro fertilization, many more eggs are fertilized than are implanted in a woman's uterus, noted Lorie Chaiten of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. "Are you committing murder if you don't use all the eggs?" she asked.
In Colorado, Kristi Burton, the driving force behind the proposed "personhood" initiative, shrugs off questions about these potential impacts, calling them "pretty much scare tactics." Referring to critics of her initiative, she said: "They realize this issue is simple and they don't have an answer for it. They cannot say when this (embryo) becomes a person. We do."
Ping
Scientists are certain of HOW life began millions of years ago but even with repeatable data in front of them many scientists are unwilling to weigh in on WHEN life begins.
Not really, only in the way IVF is carried out in countries where abortion is commonplace. In Italy, IVF is carried out by fertilizing and implanting one egg, and repeating as necessary.
We know that life did begin along time ago. I do not believe that life begins at conception, but that life is passed on at conception as part of a continuum.
life is a continuum, but personhood is not.
In the Mryna Dick case (she was deported over a year ago) a federal judge (Wright) ruled that Mryna’s unborn child (her husband is an American) was a U.S. citizen.
For all practical purposes Wright has already weighed in on this issue of personhood.
Dick was still deported back to Mexico and took her son with her.The husband lives in S. California.
What is "Personhood?" a politically corect non-gender specific way to avoid the "man" part of the word "human"? Folks who let the enemey define it's terms have lost haff the battle.
An individual human life begins at conception, as the flame of life is passed into him.
Snuffing out the flame as a lifestyle choice, is wrong.
I support what they are trying to do, I just don't like the term "Personhood"
I agree. Arguing the personhood of an early embryo is difficult, especially because personhood is defined by many ethicists and philosophers with a fairly high bar.
Humanity is something else altogether.
I belie3ve that life begins at conception. Before that instant, that individual did not exist; afterwards, throughout their lifetime and beyond, that individual retains that unique identity in every cell of their body. Identical twins are a special case - unique in their own right, but also unique in their special bond with another individual who shares the beginning of of life in every respect.
But that beginning is, for almost all of us, the most dangerous time of our lives. You and I survived that short, perilous journey from conception to implantation and beyond, but in fact, few do. As a single, helpless, unprotected cell, without knowledge or power to affect the process, we floated, without volition, to our appointed place in our mother’s womb.
We were then, as we are now and always, sustained, nourished, and shaped by our environment. As adults we exercise greater choice and control over our interactions with that environment. We can use technology to create artificial micro-environments in hostile places to allow short sojourns outside of our comfort zones.
But the distinctions between the tenderness and vulnerability of a strong, fit adult, an infirm, dependent adult, a young child, an infant, or a fetus is only a metter of degree. EVERY ONE is equally human.
Personhood is useful because that is what the 14th Amendment discusses. Defining unborn babies as persons means they are covered by the 14th Amendment. And that would be the end of abortion as a method of birth control in one fell swoop.
“In Italy, IVF is carried out by fertilizing and implanting one egg, and repeating as necessary.”
We’re not talking about chickens here. These are not fertilzed eggs, they are human embryos which are human persons.
Oh, very well, have it your way: fertilizing one egg and implanting the resulting embryo, and repeating as necessary.
Less euphonious and move verbose than my original, but more technically correct. Sheesh!
I wonder if we’ll see “personhood at the age of viability” petitions.
.
.
.
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
Personhood ping....
Ping! This is what Duncan Hunter is trying to do nationwide.
Hunter has been trying to get this past for more than 20 years.
Mark wrote: “What is “Personhood?” a politically corect non-gender specific way to avoid the “man” part of the word “human”? Folks who let the enemey define it’s terms have lost haff the battle.
An individual human life begins at conception, as the flame of life is passed into him.”
Snuffing out the flame as a lifestyle choice, is wrong.
I support what they are trying to do, I just don’t like the term “Personhood””
The term “personhood” or “person” is not PC. It comes from pagan and Christian metaphysics. A person is defined by the powers of reason and will. Three kinds of beings are persons: God, angels and humans. Furthermore, if a person has Down syndrome (which can and usually does limit his/her rational powers), he/she is still a person. The limitation of his/her powers is not essential, it is accidental, like race or hair color.
The statement by someone else that “life is a continuum, but personhood is not” is false. Our nature is eternal. Eternity, whether it ends up being heaven or hell, is granted only to persons (God, angels, human beings). So the continuum of eternity is predicated on one’s nature, i.e., personhood.
Opening a new front in their assault on abortion, activists in half a dozen states are preparing ballot referendums that would grant "personhood" and constitutional rights to embryos from the moment of conception.
The drive is under way in Colorado, where activists have begun gathering signatures for an initiative
The heart of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Reagan pro-life platform being expressed in action. Hallelujah!
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.