Read the whole article here (from CNSNews).
“An amendment to the Colorado Constitution that defines a ‘person’ as ‘any human being from the moment of fertilization’ will go before state voters in the Nov. 4 general election.
If approved by voters next fall, the amendment would guarantee every person, at every stage of life, the right to life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law. And while the initiative would not make abortion illegal, supporters and opponents alike believe it could lay the legal framework to legislate against abortion.
‘This amendment will establish a cornerstone for protecting human life in our society … and we all know this is the right thing to do,’ the group, American Right to Life, said in a statement.”
I hope this amendment to the Colorado Constitution passes, I really do. But I also think that if it does, it will make for some pretty interesting (maybe even nauseating) legal arguments.
Do they not see the direct conflict between these two statements:
1) ” . . . the amendment would guarantee every person, at every stage of life, the right to life . . . “
2) ” . . . the initiative would not make abortion illegal . . . “
So, if the Colorado legal system grants ‘personhood’ to unborn babies & abortion is still legal we will find courts deciding whose guaranteed right to life takes precedence in abortion situations. Courts will decide whose life is more important or viable. Who is more valuable and what disabilities make one “less than human” and what circumstances of conception nullify that right to life? Lord, help us.
Will the bishops of Colorado support this amendment? A recent newspaper article suggests they have reservations about it.
Quoting from the Longmont Times-Call:
“Meanwhile, the Colorado Catholic Conference plans to soon release a public statement, said the Rev. Frank Maroney of St. Francis of Assisi in Longmont. Though the Roman Catholic Church is “totally committed to the defense of human life, from conception to natural death,” the state’s three bishops are concerned that “the amendment’s language may be open to misinterpretation as well as substantial legal challenges.”
“It’s an interesting issue,” Maroney said. “You have a number of pro-life organizations around the country that would normally favor anything to end abortion, but are kind of splitting this year on the idea of a personhood amendment, at least the way Colorado is approaching it.
“The bishops and the church (are) committed to protecting human life. We’re just not sure if this is the best strategy for doing that at this time,” he said.”
http://www.timescall.com/faith/Faith-Story.asp?id=9063
Purely from a Constitutional Law perspective, the question will then be whether this amendment of the Colorado Constitution violates a Federal Constitutional right. No doubt will go to federal court and may end up in Supreme Court.
oops…I mean if the amendment is ultimately used as the basis to outlaw abortion. Agree with the contradiction noted by Soutenus.
CNS’ summary does a bit of legal extrapolation. While the Constitution guarantees every person the right to life, the exact interpretation of the personhood amendment will be left for the courts or the legislature. Keep in mind that there’s a pro-choice argument saying that the right to life does not require the right to life support.
Also, the Colorado bishops’ statement resulted from a Personhood Amendment supporter who publicly claimed the amendment had the bishops’ personal support. Being prominent figures, they certainly have to pick their actions carefully and so needed to clarify their opinion.
As I see it, had that supporter not tried to use the bishops’ alleged private support as a public talking point, the clarification would not have been need to be made. He caused needless controversy.
As a Coloradoan, I’ve been concerned about the group backing the measure. They’ve been touting the youth of their 21-year-old leader, as if that is supposed to reassure people.
But their achievement of 100,000 signatures certainly surprised me. I wish them success.