Personhood Amendment Likely To Pass in Colorado? Say It Ain’t So!

It seems that the  efforts of the personhood amendment zombie promoters, who’ve now revived themselves for the 3^rd time in 6 years,  may actually succeed this time – horror of horrors.  According to The Colorado Springs Independent (‘Personhood by any other name’, p. 12), while a reasonable person might expect Colorado Amendment 67 to “go down in flames come Nov. 4th",  a Sept. 26^th email from Planned Parenthood showed it actually passing!

Why?  According to the piece:

“Although Amendment 67 redefines the unborn as people …..supporters have sold this bill as something more popular: a law intended to create penalties for forcibly causing a woman to miscarry”.

In other words, these reprobates are framing it as a “woman friendly” bill which effectively provides right wing leverage in the war on women. Hence, a majority of voters appear to be leaning to it for this reason, and in a year when Democratic Party capital is down – and in a purple state- it could happen.

 But the dangers in passing this atrocity are clearly not fully grasped by those polled. According to Lynn Paltrow,  President of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women and a civil rights lawyer, if 67 goes through and is added to the state Constitution, “lawmakers couldn’t alter its language to narrow its wide-ranging consequences.”

 According to Paltrow, the way the Amendment is written if a pregnant woman has an abortion she’d be charged with first degree murder or if she smokes cigarettes and anything goes amiss she could be charged with child abuse. To back her claims up, Paltrow has documented hundreds of cases including the following (ibid.):

-        In 2004, Melissa Ann Rowland was charged with murder in Utah after one of her twins was stillborn. Doctors had warned her to get a C-section and she refused. She eventually received 18 months probation for the lesser counts of child endangerment.

-        In 2009, Samantha Burton showed signs of premature labor at 25 weeks pregnant. Her doctor found she wasn’t in labor  but refused to allow her to leave a Florida hospital for a second opinion and obtained a court order requiring Burton to undergo all medical procedures the doctor advised. The baby, which was then removed by C-section, was stillborn. Only later did a higher court agree the woman’s rights were violated.

-        In 2010, Christine Taylor fell down the stairs after feeling lightheaded. After confiding to a nurse she considered abortion at one point in her pregnancy she was arrested for attempted suicide.

 The actual inspiration for Amendment 67 emerged when the eight month old son of Heather Surovik was killed when a drunken driver smashed into her car. She was told the driver faced many charges, but these didn’t include any charge for the death of the fetus- because Colorado law didn’t allow for it. (Only full fledged legal persons can be murdered or 'manslaughtered'.)

Rep. Mike Foote had earlier tried to introduce legislation to enable criminal penalties for forced miscarriages but this didn’t satisfy Surovik. She didn’t just want a law that punished crimes against a pregnant woman, but against the fetus – recognized as a full person in its own right.

 Of course, the Personhood proponents deny that anything as extreme as documented by Lynn Paltrow would occur.  According to Jennifer Mason, communications director for Personhood USA, quoted in the article:

 

“These outrageous claims are just scare tactics.”

 Hmmmmm….sounds remarkably similar to what the pro-fracking PR puppets and other oil industry lackeys say when we warn about fracking contaminating water supplies, as well as soil and air.

 One hopes the voters will get their bearings, and understand the consequences, before they cast any ballots to allow this travesty to become law.

 

Gaining A Perspective on the Colorado Recall Elections

Angela Giron (left) and John Morse

 Here in Colorado we've just seen the results of what can only be described as one more in  a series of  frivolous elections:  the "recall" of John Morse (of El Paso County) and Angela Giron, from Pueblo. I put these recall elections in the same category as the stupid "personhood" amendment ballots that keep being recycled each year by a coterie of idiots and Tea bagger know-nothings who demand an amendment that declares  a "fertilized human egg is a person, whether in a woman's uterus or in a test tube."

Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that no sane person in his or her right mind can possibly regard a zygote as a person. There is simply no standard by which that passes even elemental laws or tests of logic, or science. A person, a human person, must have at least minimal capacity for basic cognition and rudimentary choice. It must possess a brain, at the very least, which evinces definite brain waves. Anything that doesn't is a proto-human entity, but clearly not a person. The logical error made is called the "genetic fallacy". That is, arguing that because a thing is going to become something, it IS something. It would be analogous to saying that an acorn "is an oak tree."

Further, to talk or write of imprisoning a pregnant woman  for "threatening the life of a person" (in her womb) because she is caught drinking alcohol or riding a motor bike borders on utter insanity and folly. Anyone who'd propose such a law really needs binding in a straightjacket and being administered thorazine and ECT three times daily.

And what has this to do with the Colo. recall votes that now replace John Morse and Angela Giron? Only that the two cretins (Bernie Herpin and George Rivera) who are taking their place are firm personhood amendment supporters! Moreover, Herpin has made it clear he intends to have artificial birth control devices and pills banned all over our county because they "eliminate potential persons", i.e. by interfering with natural conception. No, this is no joke - I wish it were! (So at least Dr. Helen Fisher - the pseudo-science 'funny' guru from chemistry.com - would give me some humor credits)

What,  pray tell, did the two Democrats - Giron and Morse - do that incited the recall? Only actively supporting SANE state gun legislation, in the wake of the Newtown massacre, when most other states were so intimidated by the NRA their legislatures could only wet their collective pants.

The sane  Colorado laws limit gun magazines to 15 rounds and require the simple expedient of universal background checks, to be paid for by the gun purchaser, among other sensible restrictions. This is no more or less than would be required of a person seeking a license to operate a motor vehicle - i.e. having to submit to rigorous testing as well as eyesight - and paying for license- which can be revoked under certain circumstances.

But the 2nd amendment - NRA freaks were jacked off and hacked off, so the provisions (now amendments)  passed without a single Republican vote. The laws, which took effect July 1, remain in force despite Tuesday's vote, which is about the only good part of the recall loss - which now has the rest of the nation in despair it can stop the gun culture and its insane advocates from taking over the nation's elections. (Btw, anyone paying attention lately to how Georgie Zimmerman is still getting away with bandying about his weapons, now against his wife? His own lawyer has even disowned him !)

Anyway, at the instigation of the NRA and the Koch brothers, the Reepos in the state - especially in my own politically contaminated county, launched the recall drive to "teach them liberals a lesson".  With this outside help, money poured in to the tune of over $3. 5 million - and contrary to the lies you may read in assorted necrotics' blogs- this arrived compliments of the NRA and Kochs (as reported by Chris Hayes 2 nights ago).  That amount never came from Mayor Bloomberg to Morse and Giron, who received about  $350,000 in campaign donations-  and that was it!


So, in effect, the NRA and the Kochs bought the election. They also had a major role in delimiting the nature of the vote - which for the first time was restricted to only a fraction of the specific district each state rep lived in, as opposed to the whole county. Also, no mail ballots were allowed. Wifey and I knew about the latter when we showed up at our own precinct last Friday afternoon (for early voting), so that wasn't the problem. The problem was we were declared "ineligible" voters for this election and directed to the District 11 vote map on a nearby wall. There we observed that the D-11 eligible vote district was cut off right at Platte Ave. - thereby eliminating nearly 8 in 10 democratic votes (or anti-gun independents like me) that would have ensured John Morse remained in office.

How do we call this? Outside gerrymandering by edict? 

Give Morse beaucoup credit for vowing to fight on, saying the true test is not being knocked down but getting up again.


We applaud that, and hope that in the next round we can not only get a referendum passed to eliminate outside money from third parties pushing pro-gun recalls, but get all such frivolous recalls outlawed - just like personhood amendments. Our future freedom demands it!

It's Time for '3 Strikes and You're Out' Referendum Ballots!

Citizen Referendum ballots often offer the most direct way for the people of this country to engage in true representative democracy. For example, some ten-odd years ago Colorado voters gave their assent to a state medical marijuana referendum that has since enabled many medical dispensaries to be set up to allow access to MMJ for those with cancer, chronic, disabling back pain and other disorders.While this has been controversial, because the feds always see pot as a 'nasty' - despite the evidence that alcohol is much worse-  it has delivered a solid backing for a law that really ought to benefit tens of thousands of sickly people, or those with intractable pain. (And who are any of us to say that a person doesn't have pain, or that it's not bad enough to warrant a pot solution?)

On the other hand, there are what I call the "nuisance ballots" that serve no purpose other than to squander precious state time and resources, and which also have been demonstrated to be unwanted incursions after repeated voter rejection.

One of these is the odious "Personhood" amendment, now making its way to the Colo. state ballots for the THIRD election cycle. This is totally absurd!  Yet, the "Colorado Personhood Coalition" (WTF?)  announced Monday it has now submitted more than 121,000 signatures to the Secretary of state to have its measure put on the ballot yet again.

WHY?

It's been fucking rejected TWICE already and by nearly 60% margins. Once again, pregnant women will be at risk, of being tossed into the pokey, if they are caught doing anything - like drinking alcohol, engaging in too long a mountain hike or snow mobiling, that puts the "person" inside them at any risk. By some accounts, they could face up to five years in prison if the Personhood amendment  passes and infraction establishes felony conditions. As one commentator put it, "we have to prevent the killing of any innocent PERSONS - including fetuses - and by even indirect means."  Really? And who made you judge, jury and executioner of the accused woman?

No wonder this bullshit amendment failed and bigtime on two previous occasions, as it will again. And for that, the state needs to come out and say 'ENOUGH! NO MORE! THREE STRIKES AND YOU ARE OUT!"

Such a law would be long overdue and enable the good citizens of Colorado never to have to endure this hokey bullshit crap again, and waste money on additional ballot space. Indeed, "NO Personhood Amendment' spokeswoman Emilie Ailts noted in today's Denver Post (p. 3A) that "eight other states have already turned down proposed 2012 personhood ballot and legislative measures" - and most of those were after only ONE prior ballot failure!

As Ailts correctly pointed out (ibid.):

"This is a colossal waste of time and funds that could go to women and children who don't get good post-natal and prenatal care"

But see, the "personhood' numbnuts and the morons who support them - by filling out the petitions -  don't care about the already born and their welfare, only the pre-born. Once they're born they're told (or rather their parents): "Every family for itself! You're on your own! Embrace the LIBERTY!"

Meanwhile, Ailts' group will again have to spend about $1 million to ensure this crap -ass law doesn't see the light of day. It's a battle that must be fought, but let us hope for the frickin' last time!

Round Three of Insanity Soon to Commence

In both 2008, and 2010, Colorado voters were subjected to "Personhood" Amendments in the November elections of those years. In its first iteration the amendment was defeated by nearly 73%-27% and in the most recent (Nov. 2010) by nearly 70% -30%. But neither of those one-sided defeats has deterred the zealots who will be coming back one more time this November, to try to get Coloradans (and indeed, voters in at least 12 other states including: Ohio, Montana, Virginia, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Alabama, Georgia and California) to buy their snake oil once more.

I mean, how many times do we have to administer electoral butt -whippings to get these fools to back down?

Recall that the 2008 version, called "Amendment 48" described its purview of law as applicable to "any human being from the moment of fertilization". This 2010 version, meanwhile, was named "Amendment 62" and declared its warp and legal woof to cover: "every human being from the beginning of the biological development of the human being".

The preceding expanded definition of "person" was then to be directly applicable to Sections 3, 6 and 25 of Article II of the Colorado state constitution. Under those sections we have:

Sec. (3): "All persons in the state have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, and of acquiring, possessing and protecting their property - and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."

And:

Sec. (6): "Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property, or character, and justice should be administered without denial or delay."

And:

Sec. (25): "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without the process of law".

The newest incarnation, which hasn't yet been awarded an amendment number, will make slight alterations to the earlier language such that the law would apply to: 1) "every human being regardless of the method of creation” and 2) “human being” to be operationally defined as “a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development"

In other words, a zygote of maybe 4 cells would also qualify and be able to exercise its rights.

Apart from the fact that none of the Personhood geniuses pushing these inane Amendments have hitherto informed us how a fertilized egg or zygote goes about acquiring property (by ESP? Telekinesis? Alien zombies?) there are other problematic issues that surface.

One only has to read and re-read their language to see that any pregnant woman would be at immense risk of arrest or possible prosecution, if she's perceived to be doing the slightest thing that might adversely impact the little "person" inside her womb. Drinking alcohol? Ach du Lieder! Nein! A punishable offense! Going up to Pike's Peak (where the oxygen level is barely one fifth at sea level) on the Cog Railway? Hell no! The little person will probably be brain damaged by the lack of O2!

Needless to say, our civil and criminal courts can be expected to be so inundated with cases (btw, how will these "persons" hire lawyers, or will it be done 2nd hand?) they will barely be able to function, and likely grind to a halt. I mean, if you are going to declare these zygotes are "persons" you then must defend their rights as persons under the state Constitution, no?

Even a healthy pregnant woman who rides horseback or drives an ATV on a bone jarring trail in Estes Park may be eligible for apprehension. After all, the little "person's" tiny forming bones may be at risk! Some busybody with nothing better to do might report her (a fundie nanny?)

The draconian repercussions won't end there, by any means. If any of these "Personhood" amendments (or referendums) are passed in any of these 12 states, every female of child-bearing age would have to be supervised lest she advertently or inadvertently injure the little "person" inside her. Every miscarriage occurring at home would have to be investigated by the respective states' Bureaus of Investigation.

Bottom line, all the females of child bearing age in the states in which the amendments passed would be forced to be reproductive chattel. Even if they were brutally raped- or victims of incest, a state "Fetal supervisory board" would appear to ensure the birth comes to term, never mind the rapist's growth of seed is the same thing as an extension of the rape.

Insanity anyone? This is the sort of lunacy that transpires when people lose track of their logic and reason, and substitute a cockeyed faith for knowledge. The key logical fallacy committed by these bird brains promoting Personhood is the genetic fallacy. This consists in arguing that the antecedents of something must be the same as their fulfillment. It is committed by anyone who argues, in the context of the abortion debate, that a fetus – even from the moment of conception, must really be - because it is going to become, a person.

It can't be, any more than one can argue that an acorn - because it is going to become an oak tree- is an actual oak tree. No, sorry, it isn't. I can easily lift the acorn in one hand and even roll it between my fingers, I can't do that with an oak tree. Obviously and clearly they are not the same thing, and neither is the zygote the same as a full, autonomous human PERSON. Once one crosses that slippery slope, one induces on himself or herself no end of legal grief.

Unless a human is relatively autonomous, and that means it has the capacity to acquire specific property, whether an i-pad or DVD player or home, it can't be a "person" because it hasn't attained the level of development to exercise the rights of a genuine person. This means the opponents of these looneytune amendments need to get busy now to attack the proposals on the basis of more refined language, showing a greater attention to biological details. A primary crtierion for "person"? It must have the capacity to live independently outside of the mother's body, as well as form its own moral judgments and possess the ability to conceptualize property, and to acquire it .....even in rudimentary form. (Thus, an infant crawling over a carpet who seizes a baby rattle would demonstrate such capacity at least in basic form - thereby making the rattle his or her "property")

Of course, some clarifying language may be needed to allow for certain specific exceptions, including mature adults -people suffering from Alzheimers or who may have other brain disabilities. But who will have shown capacities to recognize, acquire and use property even at earlier stages.

In the end, voters in the affected states - especially women - must realize the battle will be fought at multiple levels and they need to be ready!

Enough now with the "Personhood" Amendments!

Well, for the third time in three years the "Personhood" amendment has failed across these United States. Indeed, its most recent incarnation even flopped in the heart of the "Bible Belt" namely in Mississippi and in the area around Mississippi College, affiliated with the state Baptist Convention.

But according to today's WSJ (p. A6): "in the three county metro area that encompasses Jackson, the 'personhood amendment' was rejected by almost 69% of the votes cast."

Meanwhile, statewide, 58% of voters cast votes against the amendment and the resistance was across age, race and class lines. In some places, especially college campuses, the tensions were so severe that it was being described as "Christian against Christian". The reason? Evidently, many critically thinking Christians properly saw this amendment as a step too far, and way..way beyond the bounds of simply protecting life.

This bollocks appeared before in 2010 and also in 2008. On both occasions here in Colorado it was roundly defeated, and so badly the last time, one would have thought its proponents would have tucked their tails between their legs and finally found something better to do with their time. But see, because they are zealots, they're unable to do that. So they simply "regroup" for the next election cycle, wasting taxpayers' money and time as they do so. They aren't motivated by facts, data or logic but specious beliefs.

Accordingly, their amendment states that a "fertilized human egg is a person, whether in a woman's uterus or in a test tube."

Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that no sane person in his or her right mind can possibly regard a "zygote" as a person. There is simply no standard by which that passes even elemental laws or tests of logic, or science. A person, a human person, must have at least minimal capacity for basic cognition and rudimentary choice. It must possess a brain, at the very least, which evinces definite brain waves. Anything that doesn't is a proto-human entity, but clearly not a person. The logical error made is called the "genetic fallacy". That is, arguing that because a thing is going to become something, it IS something. It would be like me picking up an acorn and claiming it's an oak tree. Nope. No way.

Then there is the aspect of unintended consequences, which I actually believe drove most sane Christians to vote against it. Consider here, that if (by the dicates of the amendment) the destruction of fertilized eggs is outlawed then that would mean wholesale banning of various birth control devices. For example, it would ban the use of all IUDs, or intra-uterine devices, by virtue of the fact that while they permit fertilization they impede the attachment of the fertilized egg to the uterine wall. Hence, any woman using one would -by the letter of the law- be eligible for imprisonment, perhaps up to five years or more.

The morning after pill would also be criminal to use, because its primary benefit is to destroy a fertilized egg after the fact, e.g. the morning after. Beyond that, it is certainly plausible that any pregnant women deemed to exhibit "dire disrespect for the life of the zygote" might be taken in by the fertilization cops. For example, if caught having one too many at a bar, or lighting up a toke - say at a party. Even if they participate in an event (say 5K run) deemed not to be in their best interest.

The worst thing is that even with such passage, the psychotically driven lunatics behind it likely won't be satisfied and may be encouraged to go one step further: say outlawing the slaughter of sperm cells as "potential living persons" (i.e. after being united with eggs). In this hellacious case, all male masturbators would be fined and imprisoned merely for performing a vital function which many medical practitioners recommend (to reduce the risk of prostate cancer, see e.g. Dorothy Baldwin's monograph 'Understanding Male Sexual Health').

DO we really, really want to go there? Have some possible poor guy in some dark, zealot-driven future emerge as a test case to face execution for committing a "holocaust" via release of semen outside of an act of potential conception?

I don't think so!