I routinely read the Daily Kos to see how the other half of the country views current events. On those rare occurrences I find myself in agreement with some of the diary entries, however in most cases I find mindless propaganda which makes me question the education levels of some of these writers. A quick read of “Taking away women’s rights one egg at a time!“, left me with the latter feeling:

The initiative states, “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?” It is a sad day when the Colorado Court cannot decipher that the initiative clearly has three separate subjects and that Colorado for Equal Rights co-founders Kristine Burton and Mark Meuser, who proposed the initiative, have violated the single subject requirement of the Colorado Constitution.

One certainly would not categorize inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law under the same Constitutional section; they are clearly very different rights. Burton and Meuser argue that because all three of these rights deal with “persons” the initiative does not violate the single subject requirement; ergo there should be one bill as opposed to three separate bills.

I must be honest I am not familiar with the single subject requirement of the Colorado Constitution, and do not have the time right now to look it up. However I would assume it to mean that no proposed Constitutional Amendment may have more than one subject, i.e. an amendment that outlaws gay marriage and legalizes marijuana. That is not the case here, as the three separate subjects the author points out are not in the text of the amendment, only in the ballot initiative. Those words are there in order to inform the public exactly what it is they are voting on.

The initiative could have simply stopped after saying Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term ‘person’ to include any human being from the moment of fertilization “, and had the desired effect of it authors. It was in the name of informed consent the additional words were added, and liberals would be crying foul had they not been included. Here is the Amendment as it is written:

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

The author believes that somehow she is giving us new information when she declares that Burton and Meuser intend to use this Constitutional Amendment to outlaw abortion, as if that point wasn’t already obvious. This Amendment is necessary because of judicial activism which took place in 1973 in Roe v. Wade which effectively made abortion legal in all 50 States, although it had been illegal for 100 years in the majority of them prior to that point.

Colorado is merely attempting to utilize a loophole of sorts left in that decision. By defining “personhood” as including any human being from the moment of fertilization, the State will be giving unborn children constitutional rights which the court did not recognize in 1973. In fact Justice Harry Blackmun, who was the author of the 1973 opinion stated: “[If the] suggestion of personhood [for the unborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

No liberal ranting would be complete however without the signature “Dumb Quote of the Week”, which I generally wait until Friday to award, but somehow I doubt anyone will top this:

Kathryn Wittneben, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, said, “The impact of this initiative will extend far beyond the legality of abortion. If fertilized eggs have the legal right to access Colorado’s courts – which is one of the rights that would be granted by this initiative – what does this really mean for Coloradans?” She mentions that if this initiative moves forward, fertilized eggs can petition courts to make it illegal to use effective forms of birth control, and sue pregnant women if they miscarry.

A fertilized egg filing a court petition? Dumber words have never been spoken!

Sphere: Related Content

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Abortion, Constitution, Daily Kos, Dumb Dems, Dumb Quote of the Week, Features, Liberals, Supreme Court