|
WHY DID WORDS OF CHOICE GO TO COLORADO in 2008?
***NEWS FLASH***UPDATE NOVEMBER 5***A PROCHOICE VICTORY! Amendment 48
is defeated! The Los Angeles Times writes: Another hot-button abortion initiative, Measure 48 in Colorado, was roundly defeated Tuesday night.
The initiative would have defined a fertilized egg as a legal human being, which opponents and some proponents said could
ban abortion and other activities such as in vitro fertilization and certain forms of birth control.
A sneaky assault on Reproductive Freedom is underway in Colorado! An anti-abortion group put a measure on the state
ballot that would make abortion illegal, if passed.
It's the most EXTREME measure ever to be on a state ballot! And it must be defeated!
This measure would define "life" as beginning at fertilization -- when sperm and egg meet somewhere in a woman's body
-- and give CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to those eggs, equal to those of a woman, man or child. Abortion would be considered
homicide. (So would some forms of contraception and infertility treatments.)
Right-wing groups have been trying to get a 'Human Life Amendment" through Congress since 1973, when the U.S. Supreme
Court said women are entitled to legal abortions in the early months or when their health or life is endangered.
A federal human life amendment has never passed.
This is the BACK DOOR attempt to make this happen by: 1) Going to a state; 2) Hoodwinking voters into passing
a Human Life Amendment (or a 'personhoood' amendment, as it is sometimes called); 3) Using it as a National Model for other
states; 4) Asking the Supreme Court to make all abortions illegal with this new platform.
Here is what Colorado voters will be asked:
"Shall there be an amendment
to the Colorado constitution defining the term ‘person’ to include any human being from the moment of fertilization
as ‘person’ is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality
of justice, and due process of law?"
____________________________________________________________
Saying No to 48 in Colorado
____________________________________________________________
Why To Open New Conversations about stopping this measure ...
Words of Choice will be working with groups in Colorado.
For more information:
Download here: Words of Choice Colorado Coordinator Rachel Becker Explains Problems with Ballot Measure 48
_____________________________________________________
The Washington Post
Colorado Voters Will Be Asked When 'Personhood' Begins
By Ashley Surdin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 13, 2008;
A04
LOS ANGELES -- A proposal
to define a fertilized human egg as a person will land on Colorado's ballot this November, marking the first time that the
question of when life begins will go before voters anywhere in the nation.
The Human Life Amendment,
also known as the personhood amendment, says the words "person" or "persons" in the state constitution should "include any
human being from the moment of fertilization." If voters agreed, legal experts say, it would give fertilized eggs the same
legal rights and protections to which people are entitled.
The ballot initiative
is funded by Colorado for Equal Rights, a grass-roots antiabortion organization. Its purpose, initiative sponsor Kristi Burton
said, is to lay a legal and legislative basis for protecting the unborn. Its passage would also open the door to modifying
other laws for the same purpose, she said.
As to what laws could
then be modified, Burton would not elaborate. "We try not to focus on some of the issues that will be taken care of later
on," she said, repeatedly saying that the amendment is not aimed at outlawing abortion.
But that is the objective,
according to one of the measure's biggest supporters, Colorado Right to Life. "The goal is to restore legal protection to
preborn babies from the moment they are conceived, which is the only way we're going to stop abortion," said Leslie Hanks,
vice president of the group.
Critics say the aim
is not just to outlaw abortion in Colorado but ultimately to overturn Roe v. Wade by igniting a court battle that would
bring the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, where, proponents of the measure hope, a conservative majority would strike down
the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
And the amendment
carries broader implications, critics say, such as limiting medical research involving embryos, inviting intrusive government
oversight of pregnancies, and banning certain contraception, including the morning-after pill and the intrauterine device,
or IUD.
"If we give fertilized
eggs legal rights, abortion could be considered murder and a woman could be sent to jail for making the difficult life decision
to terminate a pregnancy," said Crystal Clinkenbeard, spokeswoman for Protect Families, Protect Choice, a coalition of medical
professionals, community groups and religious leaders who oppose the amendment.
The measure also could
expand the reach of the law into other arenas, legal experts say. For instance, if a woman miscarries, she could be held responsible
if it were found she caused it, even unintentionally. If she smoked or drank while pregnant, her behavior might be considered
negligence. Damaged eggs might be eligible for monetary damages. The use of fertilized eggs at fertility clinics or in medical
research labs would come into question because the disposal of unused eggs could be considered homicide.
"Because this amendment
would define a person in a given way and expand the universe of who persons are, it expands the reach of laws that deal with
persons," said Bill Araiza, a law professor at Loyola University in Los Angeles.
The amendment also
calls into question pregnant women's medical access, said Scott Moss, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School.
"If a pregnant woman is really two people with exactly equal rights, then it is not clear the pregnant woman can undergo any
medical treatment that jeopardizes a fertilized egg," he said, adding that the amendment would generate a flood of litigation.
Colorado is the first
state to succeed in putting this particular question to voters, but several others have tried to recognize fertilized eggs
as persons through ballot initiatives or legislation.
"Even though the success
wasn't immediate, this battle isn't over," said Robert Muise, a lawyer with the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center, a Christian
public interest firm that has drafted language for efforts in Oregon, Montana and Georgia. "This is just the first round."
Colorado's initiative
has proved divisive among abortion opponents. Hanks, from Colorado Right to Life, said a memo had been circulating among legislators
and antiabortion leaders arguing that the timing and language of the measure are not right.
Groups such as National
Right to Life, which separated itself from its Colorado counterpart over a separate issue, and Focus on the Family have not supported the initiative either, Hanks said. "They surely haven't helped
us," she said. "We've gone this alone in Colorado."
Carrie Gordon Earll,
senior director of issues analysis at Focus on the Family, said the organization supports efforts to ban abortion, but not
the Colorado strategy. "In our view, you don't have to have a personhood amendment before the court to overturn Roe v.
Wade. You just need the right court. So we are more interested in the makeup of the court than what particular challenge
comes before the court," she said.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the measure could go before voters in November, but it is unclear whether
suppor
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/12/AR2008071201615_pf.html
_______________________________________________
Women's eNews
November Ballots Split Anti-Abortion Strategists
Run Date: 03/27/08
By Cynthia L. Cooper
WeNews correspondent
Signatures are now being gathered to put human-life amendments--abortion bans
by another name--before voters in several states. Within the anti-abortion movement it's a controversial strategy.
(WOMENSENEWS)--Voters in five states may be asked to vote on abortion restrictions
in the November election in what is shaping up as a watershed year for anti-choice activism on ballot initiatives.
The most drastic measures would ban abortion altogether. They are the result
of the aggressive entry into the world of ballot initiatives by the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., a national
anti-choice legal organization itching to end abortion by popular vote and to take a new case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Inside the anti-choice movement the ballot measures are divisive, raising a
struggle over strategy.
Twenty-four states permit the initiative process, but they are most commonly
pursued in a handful of Western and Midwestern states. In recent elections, "moral values" initiatives banning same-sex marriage
or affirmative action have been used to draw religious conservatives to the polls. In the 2000 election cycle, 78 initiatives
were on state ballots.
Measures proposed in two states--Montana and Colorado--would ask voters to adopt
a state "human life amendment," granting a fetus the same rights as a person from the moment of conception or fertilization,
making abortion an act of homicide. Similar proposals in Oregon and Georgia were blocked at an early stage. (Update:
6/2008 -- The measure ultimately did not qualify for the ballot in Montana.)
....The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, a watchdog and advocacy organization
in Washington, D.C., has been closely tracking the trend of anti-choice measures, calling them a "return to the 2004 conservative
strategy of trying to use divisive social issues to rally their depressed base."
Anti-Choice Dispute
While pro-choice activists are gearing up for a fight, the ballot measures are
also causing a slugfest in the anti-choice movement.
At one side are "absolutists" who want to outlaw abortion completely and immediately.
They are led by the Thomas More Law Center, which has a $2 million annual budget and has helped activists in Montana, Colorado,
Oregon and Georgia draft or defend language for human life amendments.
"We have to have a strategy to end abortion," said Robert Muise, a center
attorney who believes a state personhood measure will directly challenge the 1973 Supreme Court decision that prohibited states
from completely restricting abortion rights. "It would create a train wreck with Roe v. Wade, and that's what we want," he
said.
Disagreement has come from the large National Right to Life Committee in Washington,
D.C., which, in years past, tried to pass a federal human life amendment but could not. It now argues that the Supreme Court
needs more justices clearly opposed to abortion before a human life amendment will be permitted to stand.
James Bopp Jr., general counsel of the National Right to Life Committee, wrote
a bristling 13-page memo with an associate in August 2007 when its Georgia affiliate agreed with the Thomas More Law Center
to sponsor a state human life amendment, calling the measure "useless and potentially dangerous." Instead Bopp recommended
an "incremental" strategy and electing more officials opposed to abortion rights.
...."The ballot measures are an extension of how the anti-choice side uses states
as laboratories to forcefully challenge Roe v. Wade or to chip away at Roe v. Wade," said Ted Miller, spokesperson for NARAL
Pro-Choice America in Washington, D.C.
Miller said that many of the bans that could make it onto ballots this November
are cloaked in vocabulary that disguises their intent. "They use deceptive titles because they know the public would reject
them otherwise," he said.
Colorado activists for a human life amendment must collect 76,000 signatures
by May 13. (Update: 5/2008 -- Enough signatures were collected to put the measure on the ballot in Colorado in November
2008.) That campaign has 900 volunteers canvassing at hundreds of churches, said Bob Enyart, a radio host and spokesperson
for American Right to Life in Denver, which advocates for the amendment.
American Right to Life is not affiliated with the National Right to Life Committee,
and calls the "incremental" approach an "immoral strategy."
If enough signatures are collected in Colorado, Protect Families Protect Choice,
a pro-choice coalition of 17 groups, is preparing to fight it with an educational campaign.
"Colorado is not an extreme state, so I think it will be defeated," said Jody
Berger, director of communications for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains. The coalition first formed in 2000 and successfully
defeated a parental consent ballot measure at that time.
___________________________________________________
From the Alan Guttmacher Institute:
Abortion
opponents in Colorado are taking a more indirect approach to the same long-term goal of banning abortion: A proposed amendment
to the state constitution on the ballot this November would define a person throughout Colorado law as a "human being from
the moment of fertilization." By declaring that legal personhood begins at fertilization, the initiative could pave the way
for banning common methods of birth control, including oral contraceptives, which may sometimes act postfertilization (although
their primary mode of action is to block ovulation).
________________________________________________________
'Personhood' Amendment Generating Heat
10 Sep 2008
By CHARLIE BRENNAN
DENVER (MyFOXColorado.com) - Supporters and opponents of Colorado's Amendment 48 were out in force Wednesday, making
themselves heard on a measure that would make the state the first in the nation to define a fertilized egg to be a person.
Fofi Mendez, director of “No on 48,” led a rally on the Auraria Campus in Denver where close to 100 people
vowed to work against passage of the so-called "personhood" amendment.
"Amendment 48, as I am sure you all know, is being pushed by a narrow minority with an extreme political view," said
Mendez.
"The proposed amendment grants constitutional rights, like the right to own property or the rights to sue you, to
a fertilized egg. If this amendment passes, a fertilized egg would have the same rights as your sister, your mother, or your
best friend. It just goes too far."
Although the proposed amendment does not use the word "abortion," its opponents say its effect would be to ban abortion
in the state.
"Amendment 48 would ban all abortions with no exceptions, even for a woman who is a victim of rape, incest, or whose
life is in danger," said Mendez. "This amendment does not respect family decisions, nor does it respect the privacy or the
sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship."
Mendez was one of several people speaking out against the amendment, which is opposed by a coalition of more than 70
groups, and represents more than 7,000 doctors....
Read full article here.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Why Colorado?.... Amendment 48!!
Why you should vote NO on Amendment
48: We need your help to defeat Amendment 48. We need your help to protect a family’s right to make personal,
private life decisions. We need your help to keep the government, lawyers and courts from intruding in our health care choices—like
birth control, in vitro fertilization, and abortion.
Join the NO on 48 Campaign because we need your help to defeat
the so-called “definition of person” amendment, because it simply goes too far.
Giving legal rights to
fertilized eggs has serious consequences. Amendment 48 would impact literally thousands of laws and threaten quality health
care and patient privacy.
Some possible results of Amendment 48:
Clogged Courts: 48 would impact laws ranging
from when property rights are granted, to inheritance rights, to who can file a lawsuit.
Ban All Abortion: 48 would ban
abortion—even for victims of rape and incest or when a woman’s life is at risk.
Outlaw Emergency Contraception: 48 is so bad it could outlaw emergency contraception, the birth control pill,
and other methods of birth control because they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
Restrict Health
Care: A woman with cancer could be refused life-saving medical treatment because it could put a fertilized egg in danger.
http://www.protectfamiliesprotectchoices.org/
________________________________________
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
or ban access to abortion will be put directly before voters in at least three
states in the November elections. Among them is a Colorado ballot measure to add a "human life amendment"
to that state's constitution, reportedly the first time that such a measure has been placed on a ballot. According
to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, a progressive watchdog organization in Washington D.C, conservative organizations have used ballot measures on issues such
as gay marriage to mobilize their supporters to vote. However, this is the first election year that a concerted effort has
been made to focus on reproductive rights.
The organizations behind these measures include Medical Right heavy-weights such as the American Association of Pro-Life
Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) and the Christian Medical and Dental Associations. ...
Colorado
A state "human life amendment" has been certified for the ballot
in Colorado and is the most stringent such proposal ever to make its way through a citizen ballot initiative process. On May
29, the Colorado Secretary of State announced that enough signatures had been collected to put the amendment on the ballot. The proposal seeks to expand the definition of personhood in the Colorado constitution to include any fertilized
egg, zygote, embryo or fetus.
Colorado voters will be asked: “Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution defining
the term ‘person’ to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as ‘person’ is used
in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law?”
Officially called Amendment 48, the initiated amendment has the confusing name of the Colorado Equal Rights Amendment.
The committee that initiated the measure is called Colorado for Equal Rights.
The Colorado personhood amendment is clearly intended to make abortion illegal. The measure was supported in court by the
Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Michigan, a Religious Right legal organization that has defended individuals who made “wanted”
posters of abortion providers. The Thomas More Center believes that, if passed and challenged in court, the state personhood
amendment will create the perfect opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to overthrow Roe v. Wade.
Supporters of the measure include the American Life League, the Assemblies of God, and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.
However, the National Right to Life (NRTL) Committee opposes state personhood amendments and refuses to endorse the Colorado
proposal or similar ones pushed in other states with the help of the Thomas More Law Center. James Bopp Jr., general counsel
of NRTL, and an associate exchanged legal memos with the Thomas More Center in August 2007 to state their opposition to these amendments. Bopp wrote that that the time was
not right for the measures and that there were not enough votes on the Supreme Court to uphold them and called instead for
continued pressure for incremental restrictions that hamper women’s ability to access abortion. The Colorado Catholic Conference declined to endorse the measure on similar grounds.
Colorado Right to Life was earlier ejected from NRTL because of its aggressive demands for an all-or-nothing strategy on abortion. One of the main sponsors of the Colorado
measure is American Right to Life, which calls itself “the Personhood Wing of the Pro-Life Movement.” In December 2007, its president, Brian Rohrbough,
wrote a criticism of Bopp and NRTL under the heading “Legacy of Judas.” “National RTL has abandoned any pretense at a Christian worldview and biblical strategy,” he asserted, and accused
NRTL of being more interested in power than an end to abortion.
The coalition of individuals and organizations opposing Amendment 48 is called Protect Families Protect Choice. Its members include the Colorado Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, The Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, Colorado League of
Women Voters, Colorado Gynecological-Obstetrical Society, Americans for Cures, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and
others.
The coalition explains: “This amendment … would lay a legal foundation to outlaw all abortions in Colorado,
even in the earliest weeks of pregnancy, in cases of rape or incest, or when the life or health of the woman is at risk.”
It also says that several forms of birth control, including the Patch, the Pill, the Ring and IUDs, might be outlawed. “If
passed, this amendment could establish a legal basis for the government to investigate a woman and her doctor for a miscarriage,
medical care provided during high-risk pregnancies that fail, or for any action that may unintentionally harm a fetus.”
By Cynthia Cooper
Posted June 10, 2008http://www.rcrc.org/issues/MedRt_state_ballot_initiatives.cfm_______________________________________________
New York Times, August 11 2008
Social Initiatives on State Ballots Could Draw Attention to Presidential
Race
By IAN URBINA
Divisive social issues will be on the ballot in several states in November,
including constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage in Arizona, California and Florida, and limitations on abortion
in California, Colorado and South Dakota.
Although research indicates that ballot measures do not drastically alter voter
turnout, they have begun attracting the attention of both presidential campaigns....
The same-sex marriage and abortion amendments are likely to attract the most
attention, along with proposals to ban affirmative action....
Colorado voters will be asked whether to define a “person”
as “any human being from the moment of fertilization.” The proposal is the first in nation to put the question
of when life begins before voters.
Groups including National Right to Life and Focus on the Family are opposed
to the Colorado initiative, arguing that the timing and language are not right.
A memorandum circulated among activists and lawmakers last year by the Indiana
law firm Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom, which is closely associated with the National Right to Life Committee, argued that now
is not the time to promote such “personhood” measures because they will fail in the courts.
“They also run the risk of taking much-needed resources and attention
away from other types of laws that could protect women and their unborn children immediately,” said Clarke D. Forsythe,
president of Americans United for Life.
Kristina Wilfore, the executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy
Center, a liberal-leaning policy group in Washington, said the lack of unity and focus among conservatives this year on measures
like Colorado’s may put Mr. McCain in a difficult position, forcing him to choose sides.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/us/11ballot.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
_____________________________________________
Danger on the ballot
By L. Indra Lusero and Lynn M. Paltrow,
Imagine a law declaring that upon becoming pregnant a woman loses her right
to bodily integrity, life and liberty. Sound far-fetched? Unfortunately the answer is, not at all. In fact such a law has
been proposed in Colorado, a so-called “Human Life Amendment” to the State Constitution. The amendment, number
48 on the November ballot, declares that the term person includes “any human being from the moment of fertilization”
and would give fetuses “inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law.”
According to the Kristi Burton, the spokeswoman for the campaign in favor of
this amendment, the campaign is about “the power of truth.” The truth is, however, that this amendment will be
devastating to pregnant women and dangerous for both maternal and fetal health.
Constitutional law ensures that people, including pregnant women, have the
right to make the own health care decisions. Yet, cases from Colorado and across the country make it clear that if fetuses
are recognized as legal persons, pregnant women could very likely lose these constitutionally protected rights. That’s
because laws like the “Human Life Amendment” enable the state to intervene in pregnant women’s lives in
ways that are dangerous to both pregnant women and their children.
For example, in the 1980s a Colorado woman was forced to have a Cesarean section
based on claims of fetal rights. Relying on notoriously inaccurate fetal monitors, doctors concluded that the fetus was in
distress and recommended that the woman have a C-section. The woman refused. Even though a psychiatrist examined the pregnant
woman and concluded that she was competent to make medical decisions, the hospital attorneys sought a court order mandating
the treatment. In a bedside hearing, a Denver Juvenile Court judge declared the fetus a dependent and neglected child, and
ordered the Cesarean section. The newborn was not in the dire shape predicted by the fetal monitoring and it was not clear
that this major surgery was necessary.
In Washington, DC, doctors sought a court order to force Ayesha Madyun to have
a C-section, claiming the fetus faced a 50-75 percent chance of infection if not delivered surgically. The court said, “[a]ll
that stood between the Madyun fetus and its independent existence, separate from its mother, was put simply, a doctor’s
scalpel.” With that, the court granted the order and the scalpel sliced through Ms. Madyun’s flesh, the muscles
of her abdominal wall, and her uterus. When the procedure was done, there was no evidence of infection.
Twenty-seven years old and 25 weeks pregnant, Angela Carder, became critically
ill. She, her family and her attending physicians agreed on treatment designed to keep her alive for as long as possible.
Nevertheless, the hospital called an emergency hearing, and based on claims of fetal rights, ordered a Cesarean section, despite
the fact that it could kill Ms. Carder. The surgery was performed, the pre-term infant survived for only two hours and Ms.
Carder died two days later with the c-section listed as a contributing factor.
In each of these cases, the state intervention was based on the claim that
fetuses had separate legal rights — exactly the ones the Amendment would establish in Colorado. In none of these cases
did the forced interventions or deprivations of liberty actually protect mothers or babies.
Many women, including those who oppose abortion, believe they should not lose
their rights to make medical decisions for themselves and their children because they are pregnant or are in labor. If the
amendment passes, Colorado’s juvenile courts will have jurisdiction whenever doctors or family members disagree with
a pregnant woman’s medical decisions. As the cases discussed make clear, women’s right to bodily integrity, due
process, and even life itself will disappear in the face of fetal personhood claims.
To oppose the recognition of fetal personhood as a matter of state constitutional
law is not to deny the value of potential life as matter of religious belief, emotional conviction or personal experience.
Rather, it is to recognize that re-writing the state Constitution to include human beings from the moment of fertilization
is to exclude women from the moment they become pregnant.
L. Indra Lusero is a J.D. candidate at the University of Denver School of Law
and Lynn M. Paltrow, J.D. is the executive director for the National Advocates for Pregnant Women.
http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080806/EDITS/484969716/1023&parentprofile=-1
____________________________________________
WHAT THE OTHER SIDE SAYS (and DOESN'T SAY):
This anti-abortion group, unusually and confusingly named 'Colorado for Equal Rights' has put out this statement.
Clues to what it really means are in catch phrases of the anti-abortion movement, such as "culture of life."
They are meant to signal the "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" views to outlaw abortion and contraception, by giving the same
rights to a fertilized egg as an adult human being.
Here's what they say:
LIFE COUNTS!
Colorado for Equal Rights is sponsoring a ballot initiative for Colorado’s 2008 election. This proposed constitutional
amendment will define a person in Colorado as a human being from the moment of fertilization, the moment when life begins.
This amendment will establish a cornerstone for protecting human life in our society... and we all know this is the right
thing to do.
This campaign is not about the power of money... it is about the power of truth. We are giving Colorado voters an opportunity
to vote their conscience and protect the most innocent and helpless ones among us.
If life is protected from the very beginning, Colorado for Equal Rights believes that we can transform our nation from
a culture of death into a culture of life. Therefore, we are taking the necessary action to allow Coloradoans to guarantee
every person equal rights under our laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|