Colorado Supreme Court Affirms "Egg-As-Person"
Fri, 2007-11-16 04:16
#1
Frustrated Mess
Colorado Supreme Court Affirms "Egg-As-Person"
Fri, 2007-11-16 04:16
#2
Frustrated Mess
quote:
In a terse 7-0 decision today, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the state Title Board's approval of a 2008 proposed ballot measure to bestow constitutional rights on fertilized human eggs.Seven reproductive health advocates filed a legal challenge in August 2007 arguing that the ballot measure authored by Colorado for Equal Rights and approved by the all-male state Title Board did not meet the state's single-subject issue rule and was deceptive in its purpose.
The Court disagreed with the plaintiffs and affirmed the Title Board's action for proposed Initiative 36 which reads:
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?
[url=http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/111507WA.shtml]http://www.truthout.org...
Fri, 2007-11-16 04:29
#3
Maysie
Frustrated Mess, I guess, thanks are in order for bringing this to babble's attention.
I have many responses to this latest news from the land of idiocy.
Warning, high levels of snarkiness to follow.
Many fertilized eggs are dispelled, dislodged and simply bleed out at a woman's next cycle. Or the one after that. Women often don't even know they were pregnant for the few short weeks. I'm sure the dumbfucks who are in favour of this getting to a ballot have a limited knowledge of this and other basic anatomical realites. Look what abstinence education does to a populace, it's not good.
So, taking this logically forward, there should be an investigation each time this happens, yes? Women who report slightly heavier bleeding should call in the coroner for an investigation? Excellent use of resources! And if you neglect to do so you can be charged with obstruction of justice?
Hey, how about fathers get charged with support from the moment of fertilization, it's a person isn't it? Fathers can pay for half the women's food, vitamins, rent, after all, it's a person!
I can't do this anymore right now. It's early. I'm tired.
[img]mad.gif" border="0[/img] [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img] [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2007-11-16 04:47
#4
I'm home with stomach flu today and this makes me want to puke even more!
Anyhow...I think an EXCELLENT protest action by women in the state would be to mail their used tampons, maxipads, or just their menstrual blood in vials if they use diva cups or keepers to the police station - EVERY MONTH - and ask for autopsies on these "human beings" to determine the cause of death.
Or, to the state legislature, perhaps.
Fri, 2007-11-16 04:48
#5
P.S. Good idea, bcg! Welfare for eggs! Have every woman who gets pregnant to apply for welfare for her "human being" which can't support itself! Pregnant women on welfare would have to be assessed exactly the same as women with a child!
Fri, 2007-11-16 05:19
#6
I also move that Colorado declare sperm human as well. After all, without sperm how would an egg get fertilized.
Jesus, I am glad I do not live in the Excited States of America.
Fri, 2007-11-16 05:24
#7
Frustrated Mess
Then they would be forced to introduce Sperm Right To Work Legislation.
Fri, 2007-11-16 05:27
#8
Scott Piatkowski
The true absurdity of this decisions is that they've bestowed constitutional rights on clumps of cells [b]by taking them away from women[/b]. Then again, maybe that was the idea [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2007-11-16 05:37
#9
Maysie
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b]Sperm Right To Work Legislation.[/b]
Euwwww!
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2007-11-28 09:26
#10
Frustrated Mess
More on this:
quote:
An anti-abortion group, Colorado for Equal Rights, is gathering signatures to get a constitutional amendment on the 2008 statewide ballot. The amendment, called the "Definition of a Person Act," would confer full legal rights upon fertilized human embryos. Other anti-abortion groups are simultaneously advancing similar measures in other states under different names. In Michigan it is called the "Personhood Amendment" and in Mississippi the "Ultimate Human Life Amendment." Abortion rights supporters warn that these amendments would lead to banning abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and a wide range of birth control methods that make a woman's womb environment hostile to egg fertilization, like intrauterine devices, oral contraceptives and the morning after pill. Despite their vast potential ramifications, these deceptively simple proposed amendments contain no mention of abortion, stem cell research, birth control or any other wording that indicates their ultimate intent.
[url=http://www.prwatch.org/node/6748]And may I also give a plug to PR Watch? It is one of those really great sites.[/url]
Wed, 2007-11-28 10:17
#11
Clearly infected by too much Python. But who wouldn't be by the earnestness of that delightful children's choir?
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Wed, 2007-11-28 14:41
#12
Sven
The court didn't affirm that an egg is a "person".
[url=http://www.knowledgemessenger.com/b/KMTasks/View.aspx?app=ProChoiceColor... posted a very good piece on the subject. With regard to what [url=http://www.courts.state.co.us/exec/pubed/initiatives/2008/36/07SA245_11-... court said[/url], NARAL explained:
"In a 7-0 decision, the Court upheld an earlier finding by the Colorado Initiative Title Setting Review Board [b][i]that the proposed initiative meets Colorado’s single-subject requirement[/b][/i] and [b][i]that the title of the initiative is not misleading[/b][/i]."
The court didn't address whether or not an egg is a "person".
They key here is that voters must be educated as to the [b][i]real meaning[/b][/i] of this amendment, which is to ban abortion, as the NARAL link well explains. If the amendment opponents are even moderately successful, the proposed amendment probably won't pass. Although, maybe I'm guilty of wishful thinking.
[ 29 November 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]