...............................
Last week, supporters of the "Colorado Human Life Amendment" turned in petitions with more than 130,000 signatures to put their measure on the general election ballot. Since only 76,047 valid signatures are required, it's close to certain that we'll be voting on it come fall.
The measure looks simple. Article II of our state constitution would get a Section 31 that reads: "As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization."
And to save you the trouble of finding a copy of the state constitution, here are those sections:
Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
Section 6. Equality of justice. Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay.
Section 25. Due process of law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.
While this presents some interesting questions about whether every miscarriage will have to be investigated by the county coroner, many supporters say that would never happen. The amendment is just about outlawing abortion.
One theory is that someday the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision which struck down state abortion bans. Then the issue will go back to the states, and Colorado will be all set to become the world headquarters for ambitious lawyers suing to protect the interests of zygotes whose unknowing mothers may have inadvertently exposed them to secondhand smoke.
One problem, though, is defining fertilization. From what I read, it doesn't happen in a "moment." Does it happen when the sperm meets the egg, or when cells start dividing, or some time in between?
Another complication is that if we define human life as beginning with one or two cells, then logically that should define the end of life, too. That is, no one is dead until the last body cell dies.
The current definitions of life are tricky enough, as evidenced by the Terri Schiavo case of 2005, where the question was whether to continue providing nourishment to someone in a permanent vegetative state. Modern medical technology often makes it possible to sustain some sort of life well beyond what nature offers.
Now consider that even after our bodies meet the customary definitions of departure — no respiration, pulse or brain activity — one medical research center points out that "after the criteria for legal and clinical definitions of death have been satisfied, many, if not most, cells of the body remain viable for quite some time. For example, it is well known that skin fibroblasts may be harvested and grown from a cadaver as long as three days after death." Even brain cells, if harvested within eight hours, can be kept alive in vitro for weeks.
So if a couple of living cells are enough to define the start of "personhood," then does personhood extend to the last few living cells — and how long does that take?
Perhaps the folks at Colorado for Equal Rights can tell us. They seem have all the answers about human life, so they should be able to tell us whether it ends with the last breath or after the last cell dies.
Ed Quillen (ed@cozine.com) is a freelance writer, history buff, publisher of Colorado Central Magazine in Salida and frequent contributor to The Post.
8mm
