Colorado and "personhood"

Visitor (not verified)
anonymous user
Registered: 12-31-1969
Colorado and "personhood"
11
Sat, 09-25-2010 - 11:33pm

Supporters Of Colo. 'Personhood' Amendment File Lawsuit Against State

24 Sept. 2010

On Tuesday, supporters of a Colorado ballot initiative that would grant rights to fertilized eggs filed a lawsuit against the state for what they allege is a "biased" analysis of their initiative, the Denver Daily News reports. The analysis in question is published in the state Legislative Council's Blue Book, which provides voters with analyses of ballot initiatives before elections (Marcus, Denver Daily News, 9/22).

The ballot initiative, called Amendment 62, would change the state constitution to say that rights of citizens are granted from the "beginning of biological development." Groups opposed to the measure say the change would ban abortion services, as well as some forms of birth control and fertility treatments (AP/CBS4, 9/21).

In its suit, Personhood Colorado said the Blue Book's language regarding Amendment 62 is not "fair or impartial but in fact glaringly biased against" the measure. The group said that none of the more than 70 pages of notes it submitted to the council was used in the analysis and that the final language was never sent to the group before the book was published and mailed to voters.

The suit also claims there are "several falsehoods" in the Blue Book about the initiative, including the definition of the word "person" as the "beginning of biological development." The Blue Book states that the "beginning of the biological development" is a term that is "not defined within the measure, has no established legal meaning, and is not an accepted medical or scientific term." Personhood Colorado argues in the suit that the statement is "erroneous and misleading," adding that supporters of the amendment provided peer-reviewed medical and bioethics journals and medical textbooks that use the phrase "beginning of biological development." In addition, the suit contends that the Blue Book falsely states that under the amendment, women would be denied health care for certain emergency procedures -- such as miscarriages -- and that nurses and doctors could be subject to legal action.

According to the News, Personhood Colorado is "facing an uphill battle" by challenging the language in the Blue Book. Similar suits have failed in the past, and courts have never required changes in the Blue Book's language in recent history. The Legislative Council said it would not comment because it has not reviewed the suit. The council noted that there is an extensive public process in creating the content of the Blue Book and advocates of Amendment 62 participated in that process (Denver Daily News, 9/22).

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/202379.php

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-05-2003
Wed, 09-29-2010 - 9:05pm

I've been trying to process the whole "fertilized egg as slave" argument - and I still can't wrap my head around it. I read the article about three times, and looked up some of the other information out there - and I just can't do anything but sit and shake my head. It's actually left me speechless, lol!

The radio discussion you heard summarizes everything that I don't get about the typical beliefs of people who are pro-life. There's not choice but to have the baby ... oh, and good luck with that, 'cause we don't want our tax dollars being used to help feed you or your baby. Or, evidently, to keep them alive once they're born ...

Yes, you said it, craziness.

Photobucket Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2007
Wed, 09-29-2010 - 7:49pm

So, at first I thought that the slave argument was a bit of a stretch - that this issue was about "property".

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-05-2003
Wed, 09-29-2010 - 10:43am

I've been reading a few different articles on this subject.

Check out the ad campaign from July:
Are fetuses like slaves?
http://thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=9373

A look at the claim that this amendment would lead to a ban on the pill:
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=153464&provider=top

Photobucket Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2007
Sun, 09-26-2010 - 11:04pm

One thing that's concerning is that rape victims could not be treated with the morning after pill. I realize that not everyone pro-life objects to that pill, but many do.



Who will pay for the rape victims medical costs should a pregnancy develop? Who will pay for and raise

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-26-2009
Sun, 09-26-2010 - 9:49pm

I sincerely hope that fertilized eggs are not granted "personhood". It goes too far imo.



Chrissy


iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2010
Sun, 09-26-2010 - 3:48pm
Gee...then freezing the cells would be akin to child abuse if the cells were considered to be persons. Who would abuse their cell-persons? Would a freezing facility be complicit in person-abuse? Equating cells to full persons could be problematic.
~Opal~
~Opal~    
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2007
Sun, 09-26-2010 - 12:17pm

The article didn't say.....What if the parents of these eggs decide not

Photobucket