Archive for the ‘Focus on the Family’ Tag

Colorado’s Amendment 48

The Flag of Colorado, one of the best in the Union

The Flag of Colorado, one of the best in the Union

This November the citizens of Colorado will be deciding on 18 ballot initiatives, including one which would amend the state’s constitution to expand the definition of person to include a fertilized egg.  The measure is called–deceptively, according to some opponents–the Colorado Equal Rights Amendment, and is also known as the Definition of Person Initiative or Amendment 48. 

The text of the initiative reads as follows:

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.

Supporters obtained 103,000 valid signatures to get the measure on the ballot; 76,000 were needed.  They hope the measure will make illegal most, if not all, abortions in Colorado.  Focus on the Family, which is headquartered in Coloado Springs, is one of several groups supporting the measure.

The amendment is the brainchild of 21-year old Kristi Burton, who says “The word ‘person’ in our constitution has never been defined and because of that, there’s a whole group of people in Colorado who aren’t protected. And, certainly that would be the unborn child.”  Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, author of the Roe v. Wade decision, said that the right to an abortion would be nullified by the rights of the unborn if the unborn constituted a person with rights.  As Justice Antonin Scalia argued in his dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey,

The whole argument of abortion opponents is that what the Court calls the fetus and what others call the unborn child is a human life. Thus, whatever answer Roe came up with after conducting its “balancing” is bound to be wrong, unless it is correct that the human fetus is in some critical sense merely potentially human. There is, of course, no way to determine that as a legal matter; it is, in fact, a value judgment. Some societies have considered newborn children not yet human, or the incompetent elderly no longer so.

He further argued that “The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand,” if the unborn are not considered persons, “but the Constitution does not require them to do so,” since it contains no definition of person that speaks to the issue at hand. 

Legally, the abortion debate is not really about whether killing unborn persons is okay or not–everyone agrees that killing people is wrong.  The issue is at what stage personhood is gained in the developmental process, from egg to birth, personhood is gained.  The Colorado ballot measure attempts to legally define that point.

The measure has many opponents, who have said that the measure may criminalize certain popular forms of birth control, like the morning-after pill and intra uterine devices,  which operate by preventing the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus.  This could be tantamount to murder if Amendment 48 is approved. 

Abortion rights groups are joined by the state’s major medical associations and societies in opposing the measure, which could make doctors who treat women of child bearing age liable to criminal prosecution, since just about anything more involved than taking a woman’s temperature could potentially impact the health and prospects of a fertilized egg that she is carrying.  Treatment of ectopic pregnancies, which often involves the termination of the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, might also be considered murder, though I suspect the courts would eventually rule that terminating such a pregnancy, which presents serious risks to the mother, is okay.  However, most agree that lots of litigation is probable if the amendment passes.

Incidentally, only about 50% of all fertilized eggs implant in the womb.  Of those that do, about one in five will miscarry without human intervention.  (A large portion of these failures are due to genetic abnormalities.)  Thus, one might say that, if this Amendment passes, something like 60% of all people in Colorado are never even born, for completely non-abortion related reasons.

I couldn’t locate any polling data on the measure, but I think this vote will be another interesting one to watch on election night.  Colorado polls close at 7pm Mountain Time; the state is widely considered a swing state in this year’s presidential election.

California’s Proposition 8

Flag of California

Flag of California

Actor and philanthropist Brad Pitt has donated $100,000 to fight Proposition 8, which California citizens will be voting on this November. The measure is the result of In re Marriage Cases, a case decided by the 4-3 California Supreme Court in May that held “that the California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying.” (Text of the decision, PDF) The decision struck down Proposition 22, passed in 2000 with 61.4% of voters in favor, which prohibited same-sex marriage by statute.

The summary of the measure, prepared by the Secretary of State and provided to the people in their voter information guides, reads as follows:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

Initially, polls showed a small majority of Californians supported the measure. Polls taken since May, however, have shown a majority opposed to it. One recent poll shows 54% opposed and 40% in favor of the measure; however only 47% personally favor allowing same-sex couples to marry, the same percentage as are personally opposed. The survey found that 80% of respondents believe the outcome of the vote is “important.”

Much of the measure’s support comes from socially conservative religious groups, like James Dobson’s Focus on the Family and the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints (the Mormons). However, all six Episcopal Bishops whose sees are in the state signed a letter opposing the ballot measure. The statement says in part:

As Episcopal Bishops of California, we are moved to urge voters to vote “No” on Proposition Eight. Jesus calls us to love rather than hate, to give rather than to receive, to live into hope rather than fear. . . . We believe that continued access to civil marriage for all, regardless of sexual orientation, is consistent with the best principles of our constitutional rights. We believe that this continued access promotes Jesus’ ethic of love, giving, and hope. (full text of letter in pdf)

The poll numbers have been steady for several months, so I would predict the measure will fail approximately 55-45%. If I were a Californian, I would certainly vote against Proposition 8. Bronze age purity codes should not to be enshrined in current constitutional law–if they should be, everyone is in trouble. This will be an interesting one to watch on election night.