PERSONHOOD INITIATIVES SEEK LEGAL RIGHTS FOR FERTILIZED EGGS

Should a one-celled organism have full legal rights to employment, property, inheritance and voting?

If the right wing has its way, new “personhood” initiatives will establish those rights and all others for fertilized human eggs.

In the process, these initiatives could ban not only abortion but also many common forms of birth control, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research and family privacy. What a legal nightmare!

A new approach

Unschooled by resounding defeat at the ballot box in Colorado in November (see below), the minority of Americans opposed to contraceptive use has turned to initiatives and legislation in 17 states to define a fertilized human egg as a whole human being.

The goal of “Personhood USA”: overturn the Supreme Court’s 1973  Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. 

• On Feb. 26, the Montana State Senate approved a Personhood Amendment (SB 406) on a 26-24 vote. It defines “person” as “a human being at all stages of human development of life, including the state of fertilization or conception, regardless of age, health, level of functioning or condition of dependency.” 
  
  Read the American Life League statement

• The North Dakota legislature is expected soon to approve a measure defining a fertilized human egg as a person. It would be a national first.

As reported by the Philadelphia Bulletin and The Washington Times, the measure passed the North Dakota House Feb. 17 on a 51-41 vote. Approval in the Republican-controlled Senate is expected as early as this week, and Republican Gov. John Hoeven is expected to sign it into law.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and 43 House cosponsors have introduced corresponding federal legislation (HR 881)

Three other states have introduced personhood legislation: Alabama, Maryland, and South Carolina. The American Life League plans to push the strategy in 17 states.

Critics of all the “personhood” initiatives say they should fail for the same reasons:

• They would upend every state law and regulation that contains the word “person,” generating thousands of lawsuits, affecting every area of criminal, family, tort, juvenile, property, health and business law, as well as trusts and estates.
  
  
• They could outlaw contraceptives and in-vitro fertilization and require prosecution for miscarriages.
  
  
• They could bar access to emergency contraception, even for rape and incest victims.
  
  
• They could deny access to treatment for any woman with a serious illness because it could endanger a fertilized egg.
  
  
• The moment of fertilization (when sperm joins egg) is  not the medical definition of pregnancy. Pregnancy is defined as the moment a fertilized egg implants in the uterus. Only that event triggers the hormonal, physical and other changes that enable the fertilized egg to draw nourishment from the mother’s body and begin to divide and grow.
  
  
• The moment of fertilization is unknowable – only implanted eggs trigger bodily changes.

By a three-to-one margin, Colorado voters rejected the proposed Amendment 48  ballot initiative.

• This was a clear public rebuke of the anti-choice movement’s effort to undermine Roe v. Wade.

Opponents of the Colorado Initiative: Protect Families, Protect Choices


The Colorado Bar Association opposed Amendment 48 because it would clog the courts with unnecessary and time-consuming litigation.


Critics of "personhood" initiatives:
Planned Parenthood of Minnesota-North Dakota-South Dakota:
Sarah Stoesz, president: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/mn-nd-sd/press-room-15830.htm and
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/mn-nd-sd/february-2009-23828.htm


Editorials opposing the North Dakota measure:
--Kate Karding, Chicago Sun-Times
--Tom Dennis, Grand Forks Herald


Defenders of “personhood”:
Blogs: http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2009/02/north_dakota_pe.php