‘Personhood’ Amendment Makes Ballot

Following is a media release from a group opposing the ‘personhood’ amendment, now known as Amendment 48. I’ve criticized the measure and discussed the politics surrounding it. Unfortunately, by claiming people must “agree to disagree” and that the measure is “not simple” but “extreme,” the release fails to make the essential arguments: a fertilized egg is not, in fact, a person, and banning abortions would violate the rights and threaten the lives of actual people. Nevertheless, I’m glad that Coloradans are organizing to defeat the ghastly measure.

CONTACT — Crystal Clinkenbeard

DENVER, CO — May 29, 2008 – Today the Colorado Secretary of State ruled that backers of the “Definition of Person” amendment submitted enough valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot. Opposition group Protect Families Protect Choices (PFPC) issued the following statement in response:

“Vote No on Amendment 48, the so-called ‘Definition of Person.’ Accessible health care is tough enough for many people and their families,” said Crystal Clinkenbeard, a spokesperson for opposition group PFPC. “This ballot measure threatens access to health care, birth control, infertility treatments, and medical research — just to name a few.”

“Amending the Colorado constitution is always serious business. Responsible government, allows us to appreciate and respect individual opinions. Sometimes people have to agree to disagree. Defining a fertilized egg as a ‘person’ in our Constitution and statutes is not scientifically based and simply makes bad public policy.”

“The No on Amendment 48 Campaign wants voters to know this dangerous amendment is not simple: it is extreme. It threatens women’s health care. It threatens lifesaving medical research. It threatens state laws and policies that refer to ‘person’ or ‘people’ — the consequences of this constitutional change are unknown and dangerous and will affect hundreds if not thousands of laws within our state statues.”

Contact Crystal Clinkenbeard, Protect Families Protect Choices Press Secretary… for more information or to schedule an interview.

Protect Families Protect Choices is a broad-based, bi-partisan coalition committed to defeating Amendment 48, the so-called “Definition of Person.” It includes nurses, doctors, religious leaders, and health advocacy organizations. Learn more about Protect Families Protect Choices at www.protectfamiliesprotectchoice.org.

2 thoughts on “‘Personhood’ Amendment Makes Ballot”

  1. The amendment is a bad idea, but both religions – the pro-abortion, and the anti-abortion – utterly miss the reason why.

    Out Constitution does not give the government at any level the power or authority to define life. To do so inevitably ends in only one place, regardless of the claimed motivation of the tyrants who attempt it.

    Furthermore, even a novice can take a law dictionary and check definitions of the word “person” — and quickly understand that such a “term of art” obviously includes entities like corporations, partnerships, and any number of legal fictions and other creations of the state. NONE of them have Rights like those once secured by the amendments once known as the “Bill of Rights”.

    Finally, read the abomination called the “14 Amendment” – which DOES apply to “persons” that are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

    Why would anyone with understanding of what has been done to the law in this country want to expand such a “jurisdiction” anyway?

    Both sides of this debate are wrong, because neither have a clue about how they have been defrauded. And there’s nothing in the whole situation that wouldn’t be FAR more appropriately remedied by a return to the now-discarded concept of Trial by Jury, made up of peers; twelve truly randomly-selected, living, breathing PEOPLE.

  2. I can see that you don’t like defining a fertilized egg as a person. But in my opinion, we should legally define a person using some method.

    Ignoring religion, let’s use biology. It seems to me that we as a species, are wired to have an urge to protect women and children. Men are the expendable protectors of the future generations.

    Just ask a group of people if it’s a worse crime to punch a man, a woman, a pregnant woman, or a child.

    The responses to that should come out that punching pregnant women and children is a worse crime than punching a man.

    That tells us something. It seems that a pregnancy is valued almost equally to an actual child, even in the absence of religion. It’s survival instinct wired by biology. Blaming religion and “evangelicals” for this is absurd.

Comments are closed.