Posted 1 year, 0 months ago in 
Loading ...
The proposed Amendment 48 to the Constitution of Colorado will define “person” as a human being from the moment of fertilization. The purpose of this definition is to allow equal rights and due process of law to fertilized ovum, embryos, fetuses, and (don’t forget) children.
This amendment was obviously conceived as an end run around Colorado’s abortion laws. If the fetus has “human rights,” then an abortion would be murder. The immediate effect of this would be to outlaw abortion in Colorado. I will not debate the abortion issue in this essay, but rather evaluate the consequences of this proposal.
As noted, the immediate effect would be to criminalize abortion, because the rights of the fetus (both unwanted and wanted) would have to be protected. The potential issues are so numerous that it would be impossible to “legislate” all the possible conflicts.
The mother’s rights would have no more weight than the fetus’s rights. Since the fetus cannot speak for itself, the court would have to step in on its behalf. The potential exists that multiple third parties could sue on behalf of the fetus, thus forcing the courts to assume this power. This is not only a potential cost in time and resources, but violates one of the core conservative principles (the courts should not legislate).
The problems begin at the moment of conception. Up to 50 percent of fertilized ovum do not implant into the uterus. Another 15 percent to 25 percent of recognized pregnancies end in a miscarriage. Additionally, one of 200 pregnant mothers delivers a stillborn. Two percent of women practicing birth control use an I.U.D. which prevents the fertilized ovum from implanting into the uterus. These could all technically be considered manslaughter and subject these women to criminal prosecution.
We would also have to prepare death certificates for every miscarriage. Birth control pills may also be outlawed. The primary pathway of contraception is the prevention of ovulation (release of the egg), however the pill also thins the uterine lining, which makes the implantation of the fertilized ovum less likely. The same logic that would outlaw the I.U.D. could be applied to the pill. This not only removes the pill as a popular method of contraception but affects treatment of many other gynecologic problems such as endometriosis and dysmenorrhea.
One in 1,200 fertilized ovum will develop abnormally and produce a tumor known as a hydatidiform mole many of which degenerate into very aggressive cancers. Should these be given legal rights and require the suffering woman go to court before she gets definitive medical care?
One percent to two percent of all pregnancies are “ectopic,” that is the fertilized ovum implants somewhere else then inside the uterus. Do these fertilized ova have the right to delay medical care for the women?
Fertility clinics have literally thousands of embryos in cold storage. They would have rights and the clinic would be guilty of imprisonment. They could not be destroyed. Should the biologic mother be forced to have them implanted in her uterus to bring them to term? In any case, it would be the end of in vitro fertilization programs which provide thousands of infertile couples a chance to have a child of their own.
It should also be realized that it is almost impossible to take rights away once they have been granted. Hillary Rodham Clinton argued in the early 1970s that children were capable of making their own decisions and had the right to get their own attorneys. It was argued at that time that a policy like that would destroy the traditional family structure. This amendment would make her dream come true. Not only would children be able to sue their parents, but multiple “social” groups would do it for them.
Do we, as a society, want this brave new world where judges and elite groups decide what happens to our children?
Amendment 48 is a knee jerk response and has many far-reaching effects that its proponents never considered. A responsible society would vote it down.
JOHN SINCLAIR M.D.
Delta
One Response to “Responsible citizens will vote against Amendment 48”
Posted October 24th, 2008 at 9:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thank you for your opposition to Amendment 48!
You might be interested in this web site outlining the case against Amendment 48:
http://www.ColoradoVoteNo48.com
We discuss the issue in greater detail in an issue paper published by the Coalition for Secular Government — “Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person” — by Ari Armstrong and myself. It’s available at:
http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf
We discuss some of the serious implications of this proposed amendment, such as:
* Amendment 48 would make abortion first-degree murder, except perhaps to save the woman’s life. First-degree murder is defined in Colorado law as deliberately causing the death of a “person,” a crime punished by life in prison or the death penalty. So women and their doctors would be punished with the severest possible penalty under law for terminating a pregnancy — even in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity.
* Amendment 48 would ban any form of birth control that might sometimes prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus — including the birth control pill, morning-after pill, and IUD. The result would be many more unintended pregnancies and unwanted children in Colorado.
* Amendment 48 would ban in vitro fertilization because the process usually creates more fertilized eggs than can be safely implanted in the womb. So every year, hundreds of Colorado couples would be denied the joy of a child of their own.
Our paper also develops a strong defense of abortion rights — not based on vague appeals to “choice” or “privacy” — but on the fact that neither an embryo nor fetus qualifies as a person with a right to life.
An embryo or fetus is wholly dependent on the woman for its basic life-functions. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as an extension of her body, contained within and dependent on her for its survival. It is only a potential person, not an actual person.
That situation changes radically at birth. The newborn baby exists as a distinct organism, separate from his mother. Although still very needy, he lives his own life. He is a person, and his life must be protected as a matter of right.
So, we argue, when a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy she does not violate the rights of any person. Instead, she is properly exercising her own rights over her own body in pursuit of her own happiness. Moreover, in most cases, she is acting morally and responsibly by doing so.
Again, the URL for the paper is:
http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf
The sad fact is that Amendment 48 is based on sectarian religious dogma, not objective science or philosophy. It is a blatant attempt to impose theocracy in America. That’s definitely a scary thought.
Thanks again for speaking up about it — and my apologies for writing such a huge comment.
Diana Hsieh
Founder, Coalition for Secular Government
http://www.seculargovernment.us
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.