Posted on 05/13/2008 9:34:55 PM PDT by Lesforlife
MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH 131,000 Coloradans endorse 'personhood' plan Ballot initiative would extend constitution's protections to pre-born Posted: May 13, 2008 9:41 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Kristi Burton, spokeswoman for Colorado for Equal Rights, and her mother announcing more than 131,000 Coloradans want a personhood amendment on the 2008 election ballot
More than 131,000 Coloradans have endorsed a plan to put an initiative on the fall 2008 election ballot that would allow voters to extend the U.S. Constitution's protections to those who haven't been born yet, something supporters say the U.S. founders intended all along.
In a campaign that opponents fret is a direct challenge to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision in which the Supreme Court discovered the right of a mother-to-be to abort her unborn child, the Colorado personhood amendment is a simple proposal.
"This proposed constitutional amendment will define a person in Colorado as a human being from the moment of fertilization, the moment when life begins," according to a statement at the sponsoring group, Colorado for Equal Rights.
At a news conference today, Colorado for Equal Rights spokeswoman Kristi Burton was asked by a reporter about the "Christian" perspective of the campaign.
Not so fast, she said, because this campaign is based on "biology 101."
(Story continues below)
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
"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
Civil rights for the preborn *PING*
>that would allow voters to extend the U.S. Constitution’s protections to those who haven’t been born yet, something supporters say the U.S. founders intended all along.
This is simply miscommunication.
They are defining “people” in a manner that may allow the law to protect the unborn “people.”
I suspect that it will not pass SCOTUS muster, but I sure hope that I am wrong.
Doesn’t it require 176,000 signatures to make the ballot?
I congratulate my fellow 130,999 Coloradans who signed the petition to stop the killings.
50 million dead from abortion on demand -— enough already.
According to their own 1973 decree, it is the only thing that would pass.
Congressman Duncan Hunter’s Life at Conception Act, if passed, would define life as beginning at conception. If that happened, the Preamble, 5th, and the 14th amendments would apply to protecting the lives of the unborn. An admission made by the court in their Roe v. Wade ruling when Justice Blackmun wrote; 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.
"This legislation ensures that the unborn are protected from abortion and further provided the same Constitutional protections provided to all Americans."
When Congressman Hunter introduced the legislation this year he had over 100 co-sponsors.
One of the Supreme Court Justices is the originator of this action- I just can't remember which one. He basically stated that all we needed to do to blow hell out of abortion, is to have a state pass a law that a unborn child is a person. Then abortion is dead. It's here on FR. By the way, an Arkansas court has already ruled this to be the law, and I don't know why that doesn't count.
Great idea.
I am sure pregnant Illegal Aliens in Colorado will appreciate that their yet to be born babies have been granted Constitutional Protections.
Kudos to Colorado!
All babies need to be protected.
"The Colorado plan 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." "
But I question one of the key statements in this article:
> ... extend the U.S. Constitution's protections to those who haven't been born yet, something supporters say the U.S. founders intended all along...Does anyone, the author, the 130K Coloradans, Ms. Burton, yourself, anyone, have any actual written evidence from the Founders (documents, letters, etc.) to support this curious contention that the Founders intended to, but somehow "forgot" to, include Constitutional protection of the unborn?
The Founders wrote voluminously on all matter of topics regarding the Constitution of the new Nation, and argued vociferously on all points concerning the proper role of the new Government they were creating. Reading the documents and letters from that period is a huge undertaking, one I recommend to all freedom-loving Americans. It's inspiring stuff. They thought of, and discussed, just about everything.
So I find it hard to believe that they would have left something so important out, if they "intended all along" to include it. So my own belief is that they in fact did not want the Government interfering in people's personal decisions at that level. But that's my own belief, others believe otherwise.
Nevertheless, I'm sure someone of these folks has links to specific statements in the Founders' writings which support their contention. Please post them. Thanks.
Looks pretty plain to me.
Not plain at all. That clause refers to criminal punishment alone.
This is a civil rights issue indeed: the pre born are a modern officially disenfranchised group.
It amazes me as a modern society we still allow abortion to take place. You will never hear this on TV, but during many abortions the “fetus” actually pulls away and trys to avoid the doctors needles or blade. This sign in a patient in a coma would be very good news and indicate some level of high brain function.
Unborn aliens’ citizenship status should be illegal, but their lives aren’t.
The Founding Fathers apparently believed life to be an inherent right given to each individual by the Creator. They probably didn’t even consider the possibility of an unborn child not being considered a person (aside from those who didn’t think slaves were people, of course).
It doesn’t matter whether the Founders had any intention of protecting the unborn. What matters is what the words of the Constitution are, and what they meant when they were composed. The same is true of the amendments.
The words say that no person may be denied equal protection of the laws. “Person” has always meant “a human being.”
Roe v. Wade gratuitously asserted that some human beings are not “persons” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. That gratuitous assertion may be gratuitously denied. By a state legislature and by the Congress.
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.