An Amendment Sarah Palin Must Love

posted by Peter Rothberg on 10/02/2008 @ 3:58pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (37)

Subscribe Now

Thanks to Ann Friedman at Feministing.com for highlighting a ghastly, almost South Dakota-like antichoice ballot measure in Colorado, known as Amendment 48.

It's offenses are manifold. As Friedman grimly chronicles, this bill is not just anti-abortion, but anti-contraception; it will disproportionately affect young women, women of color, incarcerated women, and low-income women; it advances fetal rights over women's rights and it misleadingly co-opts feminist language. (The group backing the amendment is called Colorado for Equal Rights.)

Amendment 48 not only bans all abortions in every instance--even in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman is at risk--it also threatens stem cell research and in vitro fertilization, compromises the doctor-patient relationship, and deprives access to common hormonal birth control methods (i.e. the pill and IUD), and to emergency contraception for rape and incest victims.

In this video Dr. Eliza Buyers, a Denver-based OB/GYN, explains why it's so important to defeat Amendment 48.

Moreover, the measure, according to the Washington Post, could also expand the reach of the law into other arenas in alarming ways. "For instance, if a woman miscarries, she could be held responsible if it were found she caused it, even unintentionally. If she smoked or drank while pregnant, her behavior might be considered negligence. Damaged eggs might be eligible for monetary damages. The use of fertilized eggs at fertility clinics or in medical research labs would come into question because the disposal of unused eggs could be considered homicide."

For more on how you can help defeat Amendment 48 go to the Protect Families, Protect Choices website. And for those of you who in Colorado, be sure to vote no on Amendment 48 on November 4!

Comments (37)

If this is defeated, where will all our "pro-life" posters. who tell us that "most Americans oppose abortion", be?

And surely they SUPPORT this move, especially in light of how well it did in South Dakota!

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 4:06pm
Only one way to know precisely what Gov. Palin thinks of this CO amendment -- ask her.

And then listen carefully, very carefully.

And good luck.

Posted by sloper at 10/02/2008 @ 4:10pm
And then listen carefully, very carefully.

Posted by sloper at 10/02/2008 @ 4:10pm

That's the hard part. It hurts to listen carefully.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2008 @ 5:01pm
What's their problem with invitro fertilization for people who can't get pregnant? What did God tell them that that person wasn't allowed to have babies? Or is this to prevent the lesbians from having children?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2008 @ 5:03pm
i got a funny feeling this will not pass.

in colorado of all places...

Posted by dexter666 at 10/02/2008 @ 5:06pm
I think it's interesting that this comes about in Colorado, where some organizations like Focus on the Family have their headquarters and are very strong.

Two clarifications, at least from the links I've seen:

1) The amendment doesn't seem to prohibit abortion where the woman's life is in danger, since presumably it would be viewed as a form of self-defense. The law generally does not impose an obligation to save the life of another at the cost of your own.

2) I also don't see where the amendment would prohibit contraception. It defines a life as a FERTILIZED egg, and unless I'm mistaken, the goal of contraception is to PREVENT fertilization. Therefore, the amendment wouldn't apply unless there are clauses of this amendment that I'm not aware of.

3) How does this ban IVF?

I don't want to suggest that I support this amendment; I think there are a host of issues that it brings with it, many of which the Washington Post article highlighted. I do, however, think that in order to debate it we should do so based on what the amendment actually says and means.

Posted by Thrawn at 10/02/2008 @ 5:43pm
the wording is so sweeping and draconian - i wonder if this isn't welcomed by the anti-anti-abortion silent majority in order to put this issue down for a long time...

Posted by dexter666 at 10/02/2008 @ 5:47pm
Posted by Thrawn at 10/02/2008 @ 5:43pm

THRAWN, why didn't the South Dakota ban work?

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 7:58pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 7:58pm 

Probably...because it was too extreme to garner the support of a majority? I assumes that's just a question of curiosity since it has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the clarifications I gave.

Posted by Thrawn at 10/02/2008 @ 10:30pm
Posted by Thrawn at 10/02/2008 @ 10:30pm

Well, partially....that I don't see much difference between the two when it comes to the abortion procedure being banned.

Otherwise it's identical to the SD ban....which you just said was "too extreme".

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 10:44pm
Only one way to know precisely what Gov. Palin thinks of this CO amendment -- ask her.

Posted by sloper at 10/02/2008 @ 4:10pm

If tonight's debate is any indication no one will ever ask because Governor Palin will not tell.

And Thrawn, here is your question: 2) I also don't see where the amendment would prohibit contraception.

Here is the answer, kind of: Most contraceptives interfere with the attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterine wall so it dies and is flushed away during menstruation. That is the logic, such as it is, that allows a pro-lifer to equate contraception with smothering a week old infant. Trying to wrap your head around this is not recommended.

Posted by Pogge at 10/02/2008 @ 10:56pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 10:44pm 

Um...OK? I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this. Again, the only way this claim matters is if I somehow claimed that this law wasn't too extreme...which I don't think I ever claimed. To clarify, whether the law is "too extreme" could mean two things:

1) It's too extreme to be a good idea. Since I never defended the law, I'm not sure where we're clashing here.

2) It's too extreme to be voted for. I'm not sure I disagree with this either, though I think the fact that this is taking place in Focus on the Family's home turf makes it more likely to succeed.

Posted by Pogge at 10/02/2008 @ 10:56pm 

Ahh, I see. Like I said, my knowledge here is limited, so if that's the case, I retract (2) (Also, why does that sound so formal?)

Posted by Thrawn at 10/02/2008 @ 11:39pm
Peter,

You are always passionate which is admirable. However deliberately distorting and lying about a bill is nothing to brag about.

the bill doesn't ban birth control.

The bill does not ban abortion when the mother's life is a stake.

The bill doesn't ban stem cell research. Just as President Bush has not banned stem cell research.

Let's try posting the facts. Here is the full text of the initiative.

"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as "person" is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law?

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado: SECTION 1. Article II of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read: Section 31. Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of article II of the state constitution, the terms "person" or "persons" shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization."

Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/03/2008 @ 12:16am
Posted by Thrawn at 10/02/2008 @ 11:39pm

Unlike our folksy Saribou, I like formal. Makes you sound well educated. Nothing wrong with that.

I learned to speak Winger when I lived in Kentucky. They are the nicest folks, even though they know you are going straight to hell and can't wait to punch your ticket.

You ever want some insight, just post away. I am at your service.

Posted by Pogge at 10/03/2008 @ 12:29am
Posted by Thrawn at 10/02/2008 @ 11:39pm

Well, I guess basically what I'm asking is...

do you think-

(A) it will get passed?

(B) if passed, will it last more than 2 years before it's recinded?

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/03/2008 @ 08:59am
We would also like to redefine the word woman to mean subservient baby making machine and "brown" person to mean terrorist. In this way, we can continue to bomb the living shit out of the middle east and not contradict ourselves when we lay our claims about respecting life and we can continue to support patriarchal regimes like Saudi Arabia because machines do not have rights, especially when they don't do what they're told.

Posted by HAL9000 at 10/03/2008 @ 1:45pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/03/2008 @ 08:59am

1) Very doubtful, but not as obviously unlikely as it might seem at first glance

2) No, and that's also where I think this is somewhat of a strange move. If they're trying to get the Court to overturn Roe, this is the worst way to do it. Since there are so many legal ramifications of this amendment that go beyond the privacy/abortion question, the Court can pick any one of those to rule on and never even have to touch the abortion question.

Posted by Pogge at 10/03/2008 @ 12:29am 

Thank you, though I would also say that it can be as destructive to oversimplify conservatism as it can to oversimplify liberalism, just as oversimplifying conservatives can be as destructive as oversimplifying liberals (probably too many "as"s in there, but I think the point gets across).

Finally:

Posted by HAL9000 at 10/03/2008 @ 1:45pm 

Wow, talk about your classic strawman...

Posted by Thrawn at 10/03/2008 @ 4:35pm
"The use of fertilized eggs at fertility clinics or in medical research labs would come into question because the disposal of unused eggs could be considered homicide."

Yeah, this one always gets me. Do all those who oppose a woman's right to choose also want to close all the IVF clinics?

If not, why not? Perhaps some of them wouldn't have their children without those services?

Posted by FLaim at 10/03/2008 @ 8:04pm
<<"The use of fertilized eggs at fertility clinics or in medical research labs would come into question because the disposal of unused eggs could be considered homicide."

Yeah, this one always gets me. Do all those who oppose a woman's right to choose also want to close all the IVF clinics?

If not, why not? Perhaps some of them wouldn't have their children without those services?

Posted by FLaim at 10/03/2008 @ 8:04pm >>

Again, this seems, well...false. Assuming that "unused" means "not fertilized," Peter is simply INCORRECT to claim that the amendment in question would have the implications he claims.

So again...Peter is just making false assertions about the amendment. I think it's notable that he has also made no effort to defend them. Though I don't support this amendment, it should be debated honestly. Attacking strawmen doesn't meet that standard.

Posted by Thrawn at 10/03/2008 @ 8:11pm
2) No, and that's also where I think this is somewhat of a strange move. If they're trying to get the Court to overturn Roe, this is the worst way to do it. Since there are so many legal ramifications of this amendment that go beyond the privacy/abortion question, the Court can pick any one of those to rule on and never even have to touch the abortion question.----Posted by Thrawn at 10/03/2008 @ 4:35pm

EXACTLY ....so as we approach NOVEMBER FOURTH...

what OTHER reason might they have for putting this on the ballot?

In a year where the conservative base of the GOP is dispirited???

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/03/2008 @ 8:27pm
"Again, this seems, well...false. Assuming that "unused" means "not fertilized," Peter is simply INCORRECT to claim that the amendment in question would have the implications he claims.

So again...Peter is just making false assertions about the amendment. I think it's notable that he has also made no effort to defend them. Though I don't support this amendment, it should be debated honestly. Attacking strawmen doesn't meet that standard."

Posted by Thrawn at 10/03/2008 @ 8:11pm

I am not an expert, but I believe in most cases, all the retrieved eggs are fertilized. The best are picked out and usually, more than one fertilized egg is implanted. Any saved "leftovers" are fertilized, hence effected by this law.

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 10/03/2008 @ 9:47pm
Posted by Malcontent at 10/03/2008 @ 9:47pm

Ahh; if that's the case, then I withdraw the SPECIFIC criticism of Peter on this point, though the other ones are still quite intact and quite problematic.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/03/2008 @ 8:27pm 

Hmm, fair point, though I wonder whether this might not also have an ALIENATING effect on more moderate parts of the GOP base.

Posted by Thrawn at 10/03/2008 @ 10:05pm
Amendment 48 is indeed scary -- and the logical end-point of Palin's views.

Readers might be interested to read 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, including its effects on the legality of abortion, birth control, and in vitro fertilization. And we offer a strong defense of abortion rights based on the biological facts of pregnancy.

Diana Hsieh Founder, Coalition for Secular Government http://www.seculargovernment.us

Posted by DianaHsieh at 10/03/2008 @ 10:06pm
Hmm, fair point, though I wonder whether this might not also have an ALIENATING effect on more moderate parts of the GOP base.

Posted by Thrawn at 10/03/2008 @ 10:05pm

naw, they'll go and vote for mccain because they are "moderate".

every two years, same ol' b.s.

it's like if you want young people to vote, you'll put an initiative on the ballot to legalize ganja.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2008 @ 10:13pm
Hmm, fair point, though I wonder whether this might not also have an ALIENATING effect on more moderate parts of the GOP base.----Posted by Thrawn at 10/03/2008 @ 10:05pm

Not really.

See, the moderate Repubs KNOW that all the talk of "overturning Roe"...is just talk.

Bush and the GOP Congress could have passed out of Committee the "Human Life Amendment" ANY TIME they wanted to between 2003 and 2006.....they didn't.

Because the Repubs want to keep abortion as an ISSUE...not actually try to overturn Roe and get shellac'ed in the next election.

They play the Religious Right like a harp...every 2-4 years.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/03/2008 @ 10:28pm
Why are so many people here afraid of democracy? If a majority of people in Colorado approve of this then it should pass. If they don't then it should fail. If you don't live in that state who cares what you think? The problem with Roe isn't that it allows abortion but that it was a bad legal decision. Issues like this should be settled at the state level (not federal court) with each state allowing its citizens to decide for themselves. That's how the country was created and operated before the 20th century hijacking of state and community rights by the federal government. We wouldn't spend so much time worrying about Supreme Court judges and presidential opinions if these issues stayed at the state level where they belong.

Posted by theref at 10/04/2008 @ 10:31pm
Posted by theref at 10/04/2008 @ 10:31pm

Theref, should states decide what rights we do or do not have?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/05/2008 @ 11:30am
Posted by theref at 10/04/2008 @ 10:31pm

I see,...and if we all vote to enslave your family and make our coven the official state religion.. are you and everyone like you ready to leave your job/property/family and relocate to another state?

And if you did move...if we all stratified our culture...how long until the secessions? Maybe we could be the opposite of Europe and form little tiny countries that are easy to fuck with, even when we aren't at war with each other?

Posted by Malcontent at 10/05/2008 @ 1:27pm
Posted by Malcontent at 10/05/2008 @ 1:27pm

OK, so theref argues for an interesting position (if perhaps a BIT extreme), and hi comment is followed by a pair of rather embarrassing strawmen. I don't think he's arguing that all important matters should be left to individual states. It's equally silly, though, to suggest that states can't "decide what rights we do and do have." They do this all the time, from civil liability to differential standards, criminal sanctions and definitions of crime.

I think the better argument is actually that extremely controversial matters (to the extent that the Constitution doesn't resolve the dispute, as it DOESN'T with regard to abortion contra Roe) should often be left with individual states to adjudicate. I don' think you even have to go that far, though. All you have to say is that controversial issues of that kind should be left to legislatures to adjudicate; let different opinions meet and potentially forge a compromise instead of imposing one particular side of the controversy onto the entire American public.

Posted by Thrawn at 10/05/2008 @ 10:26pm
Posted by Thrawn at 10/05/2008 @ 10:26pm

Your argument amounts to an admission on your part, that it is ok if people in some states are more free than people in other states.

Are you saying if my state votes to impede my fundamental rights, to be free of others irrational, mythology based prohibitions, I should either uproot myself or submit to their inanities?

Any law that interjects the superstitious religious beliefs of it's sponsors, is more than a little constitutionally suspect.

Posted by Malcontent at 10/05/2008 @ 10:55pm
Posted by Malcontent at 10/05/2008 @ 10:55pm 

Yes. If your argument holds, one state can't criminalize something that other states don't because that would make people in that state less free to do certain things than people in another state. In other words, for your position to mean anything, all criminal (and civil) sanctions have to be defined and applied via federal standards. More broadly, your argument actually requires that state legislatures not exist, because virtually ANY legislative differences between states will impact the types and magnitudes of rights that people have.

In addition, your other argument (about the injection of religious premises into legislation) is irrelevant here. Anti-abortion positions aren't confined to religiously-grounded premises, and there are many people opposed to abortion who aren't religious at all. In fact, many philosophy classes will include anti-abortion (and pro-choice) arguments grounded in philosophical premises that don't explicitly presuppose any particular religious framework.

Posted by Thrawn at 10/05/2008 @ 11:07pm
" Anti-abortion positions aren't confined to religiously-grounded premises, and there are many people opposed to abortion who aren't religious at all."

Posted by Thrawn at 10/05/2008 @ 11:07pm

And what constitutionally solid reasons do these mythical folks have?

Belief in human life before brain development and after brain death, requires "mythical" constructs like the "soul" to define life.

While there are perhaps arguments against late term abortions, most abortions are early trimester and unassailable w/o belief in that for which there is no plausible or scientific reasoning.

I'm sure some just like wielding power over women, but those people are just blatantly evil, not superstitious.

Posted by Malcontent at 10/06/2008 @ 12:40am
Posted by Malcontent at 10/06/2008 @ 12:40am 

Right off the top, the individuals I referenced aren't mythical. Regardless of whether I agree with their overall position, I would be more than willing to cite some of them later on if you'd like. More importantly, though, anti-abortion arguments don't HAVE to be based on religious premises, which I think is more than sufficient. A group may favor a policy for religious reasons (and I don't actually tend to think that a group's lack of secular reason by itself makes a law unconstitutiona), but if secular justifications are available, then the law clearly isn't unconstitutional.

It's also worth noting that the "soul" is not a concept exclusive to religion, particularly not modern theistic religion (see Plato for example). Therefore, there's manifestly no Establishment or Free Exercise violation here.

Also, constitutionality doesn't depend on "scientific verifiability." Moral premises (on which virtually ALL laws ultimately depend) are scientifically unverifiable by their very nature. When a population makes moral claims, no scientist can go out and conclude "yes, by my extensive observation this IS immoral." Plus, "all laws have to be scientifically verifiable" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution anyway, so the premise of your argument here seems completely unfounded.

Posted by Thrawn at 10/06/2008 @ 2:09pm
I am a young woman in Colorado right now, and I just recently met a girl who got date raped, she was on contraception thankfully, but if she had gotten pregnant and was not allowed to get an abortion, just think how it would have ruined her life. This amendment is awful. You can't tell from these news articles, but it is mostly (I would say 90% or more) supported by Christian (majority catholic and evangelical) churches and Focus on the Family also. There was a big demonstration today where all of these groups held a "life chain prayer vigil" They were out there for hours, making a call against abortion. All they are doing is forcing their opinions on others and hoping the law will force others to bow down for them. Awful.

Posted by 46secondanthem at 10/06/2008 @ 9:34pm
Malcontent,

Are you saying that anyone who is pro-life is "blatantly evil" ?

Or are you only referring to those pro-lifers who are supposedly pro-life for the sole purpose of "wielding power over women" ?

Posted by jimmylove at 10/07/2008 @ 7:23pm
This measure threatens to ignore(which constitutionally they have some leeway to do so)federal laws in favor of differing state ones. However, in some instances, federal law must be supreme over state. For instance, federal lawmen intervened when individual states refused to free slaves after the end of the Civil War, and again when some states refused to recognize the Civil Rights Act. Defending civil liberties is one of the functions of a fair government, even against a state. To punish a rape or incest victim by imprisonment simply because they did not want a child born from such a vile, evil act is a violation of civil liberties and privacy rights that is abominable! To jail a woman who had to make the horrible choice of whether or not to end her pregnancy in order to save her own life?!! To jail a surgeon who is just doing his job?!! They want put you in jail for getting an abortion, but don't want you to get contraceptives. Then they don't want to teach sex ed in high school(and junior high school),so kids learn about fantasy sex from TV and music, where people rarely get disease or pregnant from engaging in sex acts. Here is a dose of reality: kids have sex as early as eleven or twelve these days, and no matter how bad we want to, we can't stop them. Here is anoter dose of reality:if there is a woman who gets gang raped by three men on her morning jog, awakens in a hospital bed severely beaten and violated, pregnant and infected with HIV, who then learns that rape contraception is banned, and abortion is illegal, she will have to carry this child to term, and there will be no cure for her or her baby because stem cell research,which her doctor tells her holds much promise,is banned. What do we tell her? To grin and bear it? She deserves more. Right?

Posted by theliberalconservative at 10/08/2008 @ 1:40pm
Pro- v. anti-choice shouldn't even matter in this argument. Bad law effects all of us, and this is bad law.

Amend. 48 could result in denial of access to safe, regulated abortion. It could limit access to effective forms of birth control. Both terrible things, but not the reason I am most upset when it comes to this initiative.

My problem with Amendment 48 is the naivety of the definition. Personhood (and access to human rights) begins at fertilization. Really?

"The moment of fertilization is not a medical definition of pregnancy and as such represents inappropriate intrusion into the practice of medicine. There is no test available which can determine the moment of fertilization in vivo." (CO OB/GYN Soc.)

Even after an egg is fertilized, there are many instances in which it will not go on to a successful pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy, which is the #1 killer of women in the first trimester. Missed miscarriages. Molar pregnancy.

In all of these cases, there is a fertilized egg. But it's not an egg that will ever become a baby, and all are situations that REQUIRE medical care, removing said fertilized egg, for the health and future fertility of the mother. Should doctors fear to treat these women because of the amendment? Doctors DO fear it. All of these issues are stated in the official opposition to Amendment 48 authored by the CO OB/GYN society.

Ultimately, this *simple definition* erodes a woman's basic right to make her own healthcare decisions. It could easily negate the right to contraceptive privacy granted by Griswold v. CT. It could control how doctors make decisions-- based not on the best outcomes or on medical terms, but on a non-doctor's moral agenda.

Defining humanity as beginning at fertilization may seem simple and clean. It's anything but.

Posted by mollmeister at 10/08/2008 @ 4:36pm