Splicetoday

Politics & Media
Jul 17, 2008, 05:49AM

Five Foot Three

A Colorado ballot initiative this November could potentially threaten the freedom of all American women.

Voteno.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

Photo by Paul Keleher

I avoid participating in pro-choice vs. pro-life debates. It’s not that I don’t have an opinion—I’m very well informed on the topic and my stance is unwaveringly strong, which is part of the problem. Abortion is just one of those fruitless arguments that feels like it can go on forever, only to end up right back at the point where it started. It’s rare when either side is capable of changing the other’s mind, and both parties are left feeling angry, frustrated and even emotionally scarred. There are just too many personal implications in the pro-choice/anti-choice conundrum. Religious and traditional values on one side, personal freedom and autonomy on the other. Ultimately, it all boils down to the question of when life begins, at birth or conception—a question that combines medical, philosophical, religious and socio-cultural imperatives, and offers no easy answers. Or at least you wouldn’t think so. Colorado seems to disagree.

As a result of a Colorado Supreme Court ruling, this November will mark the first time American voters will be asked to answer the difficult question that lies at the very heart of the pro-choice/pro-life debate. According to The Washington Post, a ballot initiative funded by the antiabortion organization, Colorado for Equal Rights, proposes that the definition of a person in the Colorado state constitution “include any human being from the moment of fertilization.” The Human Life Amendment, or personhood amendment, would thus essentially provide fertilized eggs with same rights as living and breathing American citizens. Frankly, the very notion seems completely absurd. Whether or not you fall on the “life starts at conception” side of this debate, it hardly seems reasonable to guarantee the same level of freedom and protection to an unborn, undeveloped life as you would to the human being that sustains its very existence. A fertilized egg, a fetus, is essentially a parasite, relying on its host for survival. If both parasite and host are considered human, with equal rights, then whose freedoms take precedence when the rights of one conflict with those of the other?

Despite the assertion of Kristi Burton, the ballot initiative’s sponsor, that the goal of the Human Life Amendment is not to outlaw abortion, the decision of Colorado voters will undoubtedly play a paramount role in future efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade. If the measure passes in Colorado, it will indisputably create a legal battle that will lead straight to the United States Supreme Court. The initiative has implications that extend well beyond the fight over abortion, though.  

The Washington Post reports that such implications may include, “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.” The amendment could also have significant legal ramifications in cases of miscarriage. Even unintentional miscarriages, if caused by smoking, drinking or participating in other potentially harmful activities while pregnant could be deemed negligence, resulting in legal consequences on top of the emotional ones that already accompany a lost pregnancy. And where do the possibilities for legal action end? If a pregnant woman gets into a car accident as a result of speeding and the impact leads to a miscarriage, could she be charged with manslaughter? If it is the baby’s father that is driving instead, does he incur the charge? And what about miscarriages that occur through no fault of the mother? Does she have to submit to testing to isolate the cause of the miscarriage? Must she prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that she did not induce the miscarriage? At what point does a fertilized egg’s right to life infringe upon a woman’s right to privacy?

It’s not just pregnant women who will be affected by this changing definition. Fertility doctors and researchers could be held legally responsible for any damage that occurs to fertilized eggs. Or perhaps the use of fertilized eggs will be halted altogether, to avoid any potential criminal charges, which would certainly have a significant impact on jobs, genetic disease research, and perhaps most importantly, fertility-challenged couples who are looking for viable alternatives to standard conception.

Ballot initiatives are nothing new. Every November uninformed voters who are mostly just looking to pick one candidate over another find themselves voting on anything from establishing a hunting season for mourning doves, to creating an amendment to the state constitution that would ban gay marriage and outlaw domestic partner benefits. But state-by-state ballot initiatives don’t receive the kind of media attention that is reserved for presidential races. A Colorado voter is more likely to know the contents of Barack Obama’s iPod than the specifics of the Human Life Amendment. Plus, ballot initiatives, particularly those with such vital impact as the personhood amendment, are purposefully vague and confusing. It’s often difficult to tell if a Yes means yes or no, and you can leave the polls feeling quite uncertain that the vote you cast was the vote you actually intended.

I don’t mean to say that the residents of Colorado aren’t capable of determining the implications of this particular initiative, and certainly no matter what vote they cast, it’s their right to do so. But a vote to decide whether or not life begins at conception is one with the potential to affect the lives of every woman in this country. I am a woman in this country and I don’t want Colorado making my choices for me. When do I get to cast my vote?

Discussion
  • Good on you Claire. Trying to debate abortion is absurd. It's like religion; all you can do is make your points and leave it at that. To me, the fact that the initiative's sponsor says the purpose is not to outlaw abortion is absolutely ridiculous; that's precisely what it is. Also, I would hate to think if this did pass and did eventually get to the Supreme Court, at least with the Court that is residing right now. Yikes.

    Responses to this comment
  • I don't think you have to worry about the future Supreme Court. Obama, the likely winner, will appoint liberals to the bench. McCain's a wild card, but there won't be an Alito on his watch. Also, this initiative, which I agree is awful, is unlikely to pass, given that Colorado's likely to go for Obama this fall.

    Responses to this comment
  • These things you say, they are true.

    Responses to this comment
  • I can see it now: "DENVER--Woman convicted on three counts of involuntary manslaughter as her in-vitro fertilization procedure yielded only one viable human child. The victims, three fertilized embryos, were unable to take hold in the uterus and ultimately fell to their deaths. The woman's husband, while not officially a suspect, may be implicated as an accomplice if the charge is elevated to second degree murder following a statement by the accused, in which she stated 'we were hoping that we would be blessed with a child' indicating their preference for one child at the expense of the other three."

    Responses to this comment
  • You're being an alarmist, DT.

    Responses to this comment
  • Am I? I wouldn't be surprised if a pro-choice DA brings that charge to expose the craziness of this law and get it overturned/struck down. Of course, that could backfire horribly and head up to the supreme court, which is the whole point of creating this law anyway.

    Responses to this comment
  • But do you really believe, and pardon my repetition from above, that if and when this absurd issue reaches the Supreme Court, that the makeup of that body will be as presently constructed. I don't.

    Responses to this comment
  • I think DT was just creating a wonderful, hysterical, hypothetical image of a weird scenario brought on by the hypothetical passing of this initiative. Alarmist; No. Fortune-teller; possibly.

    Responses to this comment
  • You guys are getting paranoid. Claire Taylor's article was a good one; I didn't know about this ballot measure. But it makes me wonder how many other intrusive, wacko proposals are on the ballots of the 50 states this fall. Do you, DT or threels? It'd be a great follow-up piece for Claire.

    Responses to this comment
  • I'm not worried about fringe proposals like this passing; there's a dude in Texas who tries to get a law passed every year that would require parents to pick names for their children off of a government sanctioned list.

    Responses to this comment
  • I'm kidding. I understand how ridiculous it is. And yes, that actually would be an interesting follow-up piece to discuss the numerous crazy proposals out there, (unfortunately I don't know any off-hand). I think the reason this is a great one to discuss is, even though it does seem crazy, it is an issue that is constantly debated, (even though there are so many other things the public should be concerned with).

    Responses to this comment
  • Threels, I don't know of any similar kooky measures, off-hand either. How about it, Ms. Taylor, good follow-up? In New Jersey, the politics is such a cesspool that I've stopped paying attention and just go to the polls dutifully and vote. California, of course, is the motherlode of propositions, but they're so ubiquitous I think even people in that state have stopped paying attention. And yes, I agree that the public has bigger things to worry about: like the debate on universal health care and Social Security reform. Unless there's an apocalyptic change in American culture, the debate over abortion is over: it's legal and while some there may be some rogue proposal each election year, it'll stay legal.

    Responses to this comment
  • I'm not sure that I would consider this a "kooky measure" or "fringe proposal." If you recall, many Gay Rights were completely stripped in states with vaguely worded statements that not only outlawed Gay Marriage, but access to health care, visitation and other benefits. All passed with flying colors. In Michigan, an affirmative action ban that played into the voters' bias and ignorance passed easily. These proposals can be very dangerous, because with ballot initiatives (unlike referenda) as long as you get enough signatures to put it on the ballot, you can use confusing language and unethical marketing to get the thing passed.

    Responses to this comment
  • sad sad sad. can you imagine if this made it to the supreme court? what, especially with clarence thomas and friends up there making sure that any progressive measure is chopped in the nuts.

    Responses to this comment
  • After Jesse Jackson's fit of jealousy led him to talk about cutting off Obama's nuts, I thought that kind of remark (PoMoMad, above) was an ixnay in progressive circles. Or maybe "nuts" is just the new "tits."

    Responses to this comment
  • @Timothy: From his own website: "John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat." Quit counting your chickens before they hatch as far as the winning candidate is concerned. It is foolish to assume that Colorado voters won't support this ballot initiative. The number of prolifers in this nation should not be underestimated. If the measure passes and McCain wins, the prochoice movement will suffer, and so will American women.

    Responses to this comment
  • Wilsonl: I don't believe for a minute that McCain is an avid pro-lifer. Forget about his website, that's just boilerplate for the Republican base to keep them satisfied. And I'm not "counting chickens," as I believe it's unlikely McCain will win. And there's a reason he won't win: not only has Obama energized a huge portion of the voting population, but McCain is distrusted by much of the conservative bloc of voters, many of whom will sit out the election, just as they did in '92.

    Responses to this comment
  • "I don't believe for a minute that McCain is an avid pro-lifer." Oh man, I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are! You can see his record on reproductive choice votes here: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/mccain.html, but to just give you a simplified rundown: in his legislative career, McCain has voted against choice in 125/130 votes. This includes voting for the Federal Abortion Ban and voting to define a fetus as a human life. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Whether or not you think he'll lose doesn't change the fact that you are clearly uninformed of his voting record and stance on reproductive freedom.

    Responses to this comment
  • So you're a one-issue voter? If afforded that luxury, I'd be one too: voting only for the candidate who has the most "progressive" (in your lingo) stand on the importance of immigration in the U.S. McCain, who once made a principled stand on this issue, has now pandered to the xenophobic right. Obama, leaving well enough alone, hasn't said much of anything on the issue, although his protectionism is a tip-off. As for McCain and abortion, maybe he's pro-life and casts votes in the Senate that way, but he's never made a huge issue out of it and I don't think even another conservative on the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade. The country has moved on, despite the lunatics who still want to outlaw all abortions.

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment