First of all, if it were to pass, it would create a whole host of unintended and unforseen consequences. For example, if a fetus is defined as a person equal to all other persons under all Colorado laws, could not a pregnant mother be punished for doing anything that might harm the fetus: driving without a seat belt, smoking, eating poorly. That would be reckless endangerment. Do we want a whole new layer of nanny state government watching over every pregnant woman's actions?
And secondly, the public just doesn't go for changing things with legal "tricks" like this. Believe it or not, the American electorate is pretty sophisticated (we're a great country, what can I say?) and they understand that if we want to change the law on abortion, we should have that debate and change that law. So far (to my dismay), they haven't wanted to change that law (by amending the Constitution or electing a president and senate who will give us a foolproof anti-Roe court). But most attempts to do an end-run around things with tricky language fall flat. Fancy lawyering is just a bunch of words and the people don't go for that.
So, while I agree with the goal, I think this effort is misguided and bound to fail. JMHO
—the South Dakota experience over the last couple of elections proves you correct-—
Quoting Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center: "It is important to bear in mind that the proposal establishes a constitutional principle; it does not enact criminal or civil legislation. And it establishes a constitutional principle that provides a direct challenge to the fundamental holding of Roe v. Wade," he wrote. "Without a direct challenge to Roe, any proposal to protect innocent human life from abortion is utterly meaningless."
“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?