'Personhood' amendment backers submit signatures
By Jean Torkelson, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published May 13, 2008 at 11 p.m.
Preston Gannaway / The Rocky
Backers of a so-called personhood amendment march to the secretary of state's office to submit 131,235 signatures in an effort to get the initiative on the November ballot.
Supporters of a movement to declare a fertilized human egg a person in the state constitution turned in 131,235 voter signatures Tuesday to get a measure on the November ballot.
They called it a historic step toward Colorado becoming the first state to pass a "personhood amendment."
Opponents said it's an attempt to erode abortion rights.
"Colorado will become ground zero for the issue of life in the United States of America," supporter Mark Hoteling told an ebullient crowd of more than 100 people at the Knights of Columbus Hall near the Capitol.
Supporters repeatedly erupted in applause and shouts: "You tell 'em, now," and "Let's go for it!"
Then they lugged boxes of signatures to the secretary of state's office, where at least 76,000 of them must be certified to get the initiative on the ballot. The process could take a week to 30 days.
The amendment defines a person as including "any human being from the moment of fertilization."
"I will not rest until every child in Colorado is protected by law and love," said Kristi Burton, a 20-year-old law student who leads the movement under the banner of the Colorado Equal Rights campaign.
Since November, when the Colorado Supreme Court cleared the way for the initiative to proceed, the campaign has enlisted 1,100 volunteers to canvass 500 churches and 80 percent of Colorado's counties to collect the signatures, Burton told the crowd.
Opponents also weighed in Tuesday to warn that a personhood amendment was the first step to overturning Roe vs. Wade and toward government interference in matters such as birth control, in-vitro fertilization and stem cell research.
"This is a dangerous and deceptive amendment which we know really would threaten health care access in Colorado and create government involvement in personal decision-making," said Toni Panetta of Protect Families Protect Choices.
Burton said the argument about abortion is an attempt to distract from the simplicity of the initiative.
"The Colorado Constitution is to protect us - but who is 'us'?" This initiative, Burton said, is a chance to define the matter.
Panetta said the coalition is "keeping all our resources and options open" for possible legal challenges.
torkelsonj@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5055
'Personhood' elsewhere
Here's what's happening in other states.
* Georgia: Last year, supporters failed to get a supermajority in the state legislature, which is how measures get on the ballot. Will be reintroduced next year.
* Oregon: Attorney general blocked the measure, saying its language was unconstitutional, according to Oregon Right to Life. Supporters will tweak the language and start collecting signatures.
* Michigan: Backers fell short of the 317,000 signatures required to get on the measure on the ballot. Supporters hope to persuade the legislature to put it on the 2009 ballot.
* Montana: Supporters are trying to collect at least 44,000 valid voter signatures by a June 20 deadline for the November ballot.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
A Dozen on Denver
Sandra Dallas wrote 'Lennie's tavern' for our ongoing fiction series. Check it out!
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on today's events.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's totally biased rant about the Broncos-Jaguars game.
-
Presidential Elections
See how Colorado counties have voted through the years.
-
County election profiles
A look at how residents in each Colorado county may vote.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
-
Latest from Dove Valley
Click for more broncos videos.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
No. 44 means a lot to Floyd Little
-
Rocky Preps
Now showing: ThunderRidge-Highlands Ranch football.
May 14, 2008
2:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrfxx writes:
Intriguing that so-called Christians like Ms. Burton claim to believe in Christ's teachings, but "pick & choose" which ones to accept. The hardest for them to accept are the ones where he dealt with separation of Church & State - "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, & unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21), & the one where he dealt with judging others - "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: & with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; &, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; & then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.." (Matthew 7:1-5) If every word in the Bible should be taken as "gospel", they are going to be in for a rude surprise when they hit the afterlife.
Not every fertilized egg implants, & depending on the age/health of the woman, spontaneous abortions (aka miscarriage - because nobody wants to admit that God is the biggest abortionist of all) ranges from 15% to over 50%. Should every female who suspects she might be pregnant be confined to bed immediately? What if the woman who does everything recommended by her OB/GYN still miscarries? Will it be a crime to be UNABLE to carry a pregnancy to term? And what about the folks who need to resort to in vitro fertilization - will that be forbidden, as many of those fertilized eggs are frozen for "on demand" future attempts at conception - isn't that cruel & unusual punishment for those "persons".
As far as those of you who believe that with birth control, no pregnancy should be unwanted, I must point out that the ONLY 100% successsful form of birth control is abstinence (even vasectomies & tubal ligations have "failed", not to mention the other forms of birth control, including what we used to refer to as "Catholic roulette") - & which one suspects might be a little tough to advocate within a "Christian" marriage. Or are we all to believe that it is a wife's "duty" to be barefoot & pregnant - even if an additional (or any) pregnancy will kill her?
If this travesty comes to pass, the state courts will be tied up for years determining what a only woman, her doctor & possibly her significant other should have a say in, including but not limited to what forms of birth control are acceptable, if/when abortion is permitted, if a pregnant woman should be allowed life saving medical intervention for a deadly disease which could interfere with a pregnancy, etc. I hope that should it pass, Ms. Burton & her ilk also experience the worst possible outcome for every pregnancy - which they are are trying to force on all other women.
May 14, 2008
7:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
MrJim writes:
Would it now, under Colorado Law, require miscarried babies to have funerals and burials/cremations, same as an adult or child? Will they have to be assigned SSN's for death certificates? There will of course have to be a death certificate for a miscarriage now. Will life insurance now be required to cover miscarriages? Will my employer be required to allow me to select life insurance on the fetus if the wife & I 'did it' last night?
May 14, 2008
7:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
RJS07 writes:
I am sure the signatures will be well scrutinized...just as sure as I am that there are enough people who really signed this petition without thinking it through. This is indeed a slippery slope. I'm conservative, but I don't think we need to go here.
May 14, 2008
8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Even though I'm against abortion, this potential amendment is just plain wrong. Remember, The Pill and IUDs both inhibit a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. By the wording of this hosed up potential amendment, any doctor who prescribes or pharmacist who dispenses The Pill could be charge with a felony! This is total Bull Crap.
Scott
May 14, 2008
8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
El_Guapo writes:
"I hope that should it pass, Ms. Burton & her ilk also experience the worst possible outcome for every pregnancy - which they are are trying to force on all other women."
Wishing ill upon a twenty-year old young woman will not persuade people to join your cause. It simply shows the mean-spirited and fanatical nature of those who oppose this amendment.
Keep this up and the amendment will pass.
May 14, 2008
3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
kevinjjones writes:
I suggest readers who are baffled by the claim that we have ethical obligations towards newly-conceived take a look at Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen's book Embryo: A Defense of Human Life.
A former fertility/IVF doc who now works for CU's Health Sciences Center highly recommended it to me, and some of their shorter work has been top-notch.
I've worryied about the professionalism of Colorado Equal Rights, but the size of their successful petition drive proves they can be effective. Props to them.
May 15, 2008
9:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
fatheromalley writes:
Foolish laws passed by foolish people.. Government controlling a woman's choice is scary... almost as scary as the government having the right to forcefully take a portion of my income to "redistribute" to those that do not produce for this oountry.
Without choice.. live and let live? Not to the radicals of either Party.. stay out of my wifes womb, please and government stay out of my paycheck! I'll pay taxes with what I buy, how much I buy and what I buy.. get out of my bank account.. you feeeelthy liberals.. you have no right to know what i make and dictate what I "give" by what I earn. that's MY production, NOT yours.. that's my wife's body, not yours!
www.fatheromalley.com... more new ideas there than here.. New ideas now, not old rehashed ones..
May 15, 2008
8:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
RLaitres writes:
The "diversion divisions" are once again ramping up their rhetoric and tactics for this election. I wonder how long the people will fall for it? Seems to me that with all of the problems and challenges we face, our attention would be better spent on subjects that need addressing, rather than constantly get drawn into these so-called "morality" issues, which most individuals do not understand. So many, every election cycle are "fooled" into believing that because they vote for or against something "superior" that they are voting in their own interest. This tactic of "divide and conquer" or "diverting attention" is as old as mankind. Seems people would have learned by now, but many haven't. Be honest about it. These issues are always led by theocrats who are convinced that whatever their priest or pastor tells them is the "word of god." If they want to get involved in the lives of others through politics, maybe we should start taxing them, whether it is done directly or not.
May 28, 2008
4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
jghull writes:
Response to mrfxx
As to your first comment concerning rendering unto Caesar in Matt 22:21 The legislation proposes that human life begins at fertilization, which is matter of medical and scientific fact, and that as such a human being is entitled to the same rights as any other human being despite their age or stage of life. To suggest that it is Caesar’s right (thus the government’s right) to determine the fate of human life as to whether or not it can be destroyed is a usurping of God’s sovereignty and a rejection of the fundamental principles on which this country was found, for our very own Declaration of Independence states that mankind has certain God-given, inalienable rights which include LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus our own founding government documents declare the issue of abortion as God’s and to be rendered unto Him. Thus to have legal abortion renders unto Caesar what is God’s, i.e., the decision of who lives and who dies.
You quote judge not lest ye be judged in Matt 7:1-5. This statement of Scripture does not forbid the calling of evil deeds as evil, but instead prohibits the judging the evil doer’s soul/person as being evil. The Bible continuously charges us with correcting “brothers” who do wrong: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault,...if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." Matt 18:15-17 So in actuality, if every word in the Bible is true, then they are doing exactly as they should. In addition, if the founding fathers of this country meant every word they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, then the people supporting this legislation are carrying on the same spirit that founded this country.
You comment on natural miscarriages and God "being the greatest abortionist" as a reason that abortion should be permissible.
There are many people who die from common diseases such as cancer and flu. Also, many people die by common occurrences such as auto accidents. Since so many people die from natural ailments and accidental causes, does that give other people the right to “choose” to end their life prematurely? Is it permissible to execute someone with a flu because they could die anyway or to execute someone because they have a driver’s license or cancer? Given enough time, every human person’s survival rate drops to zero. Since God essentially takes every human being’s life, thus by your judgment making Him the greatest murderer of all time, then should it not be allowed for humans to determine when other humans should die? After all, God does it so why should we not do it as well?
You pose the question if such legislation would make invitrofertilization "cruel and unusual punishment." Only if it is cruel to create dozens, hundreds, or thousands of human beings just so that you can have one for yourself, thus treating all the other human beings you created as a disposable commodity.
May 28, 2008
4:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
jghull writes:
One last thing to mrfxx concerning the comment on birth control:
Birth control methods are far from 100% successful in preventing birth, but they are 100% responsible for the propagation of the mass media ideal of “unwanted pregnancy.” Pregnancy is a natural consequence sexual intercourse. Birth control methods have led humanity to disassociate fertility from sexuality which has caused an explosion of “crisis pregnancies” and “unwanted pregnancies.” The result has been a societal normalization of abortion and a societal devaluation of human life, human sanctity, human liberty, and human rights. As such the resulting holocaust of one million plus abortions per year in this country alone is no surprise.
For additional information, articles, and resources that I have compiled and written on life issues, visit www.myspace.com/jiesheng
May 28, 2008
9:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
AMRAB writes:
I was downtown when they were collecting signatures for this. They were saying "stop child abuse". I almost signed this petition! I am 100% pro-choice! Likily enough, I asked what it was actually for. Since I used to work at an abuse center, I am very interested in these laws. I was shocked how they were trying to get signatures and lying to everyone who was walking by.
If you want to stop child abuse and save children, how about starting with the ones who are already BORN! We need to save and protect children who are already alive and breathing on their own. Stop trying to punish women for having sex. I have a right to my body. I have a right to do what I wish to my body. You don't like it, I don't care! I belong to myself not to you and not to my government.