In Colorado, Voters Will Decide Whether Human Embryos Are People Under State's Constitution

October 29, 2008 RSS Feed Print

In the battleground state of Colorado on November 4, along with casting a vote for Barack Obama or John McCain, voters will be considering whether or not to make Colorado the first state to give constitutional rights to human embryos.

The proposed Amendment 48 would change Colorado's Constitution to define the term "person" as "any human being from the moment of fertilization." That means fertilized eggs and fetuses would have all the rights of individuals under Colorado law, down to the right to due process.

Supporters say it protects the value of life and clarifies "personhood" in light of scientific findings on how humans develop in the womb. They also argue that it won't automatically overturn access to contraception, abortion, or medical research involving embryos, since courts still will have to interpret laws on a case-by-case basis.

But opponents say the amendment could have wide-ranging consequences. The amendment could allow abortion, and even contraception, to be interpreted as murder, without exception for victims of rape or incest. In vitro fertilization could be banned, since the eggs used in the process would be protected; so could stem cell research. Meanwhile, more than 20,000 references to "persons" exist in state statutes, regulations, and city ordinances, meaning that the ban could have unintended effects, one reason the Colorado Bar Association has opposed it.

"It is a blatant attempt to interfere into personal, private, family health decisions," says Fofi Mendez, campaign manager for Vote NO on 48.

The views of Mendez and other opponents of the ban, including self-described "pro-life" Gov. Bill Ritter, seem to have struck a chord with Coloradans. Even though supporters originally gathered more than 130,000 signatures to get the measure on the ballot, support seems to have tumbled. A recent Rocky Mountain News/CBS4 News poll showed that more than two thirds of Colorado voters oppose the bill, compared with 27 percent in favor. That's despite another poll showing that 44 percent of voters in the state say life begins at conception.

Even if the measure fails, though, some say it points to a rising politicization of contraception. Mississippi, Georgia, Michigan, Oregon, and Montana have attempted to get similar measures passed, Mendez says.

Contraception also has become an issue in nine races in this election, according to Cristina Page of the advocacy site BirthControlWatch.org, including congressional campaigns in New Jersey, Ohio, New Hampshire, Washington, Virginia, and Colorado as well as a gubernatorial race in Washington.

"This is a trend we're going to see—birth control becoming a campaign issue—grow," says Page.

Tags:
abortion,
research,
Colorado,
birth control

Reader Comments Read all comments (5)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Would "any human being from the moment of fertilization" mean that an unimplanted egg is a suicide, or accidental death? Would deaths from complications of pregnancy now be murder, making the family of the deceased entitled to victims' compensation?

Would we have to extend the protection to sperm and ova, the cells involved in in-vitro fertilization? Once they touch, it's a human being, with the right to self-expression, and equal protection under the law. Since the parents have full power of attorney, they can donate their late child's single-celled body to science with no problems whatsoever, just like I will with my own corpse (less the usable organs).

Or consider the equal protection offered to the mother and cell: If the cell has the right to force the woman to refrain from certain practices that alter her hormone levels to the cell's detriment, the woman has the right to prohibit the cell from certain practices that will harm her.

The preceding comment used the literary devices of sarcasm and irony.

decius of MA 4:39PM December 03, 2010

You are an excellent writer, as always. Please let me suggest that Governor Bill Ritter, Colorado, is pro-choice. It is former Governor BIll Owens who is "pro-life" and against abortion, etc.

I fervently hope Colorado voters reject this amendment. For those who are staunchly against any form of contraception and/or abortion, please include funding to support the unwanted child in education, housing and health. It one thing to demand all possible children be brought into the world, but the stance of such believers, frequently Republicans, is against any form of social services. The big picture of what a life is worth means little if that unwanted child cannot receive standard care and become a functioning member of society. On a more basic level, lack of on-going support is similar to not spaying a pet, but throwing the litter into the wild. Where is the common sense in that?

Jeanne Tubb of CO 5:04PM October 30, 2008

No way should we allow a woman to do what she wants with her body. No way should anyone outside the womb have more say than something not yet born. But it's funny how the fetus will have more rights than the adult, but once it's born, the adult has the legal control over the child until they are 18. So it's cool that the future will be able to exercise their rights from the womb, but then lose those rights when they are born, and then get them back when they're 18. wtf? save the children, by giving up our rights?

Bucky of CT 1:47PM October 30, 2008

advertisement

Latest Video