North Dakota Pro-Lifers: Don't Call Our Personhood Amendment a "Personhood Amendment"

[cali]

This approach is representative of how republicans lie about their agenda.

North Dakota is poised to become the first state in the country to recognize a fertilized egg as a person. At least, that's what opponents say about a controversial ballot measure to amend state's constitution. Supporters say that's total bunk.

The proposal, known as Measure 1, would add a single sentence to the North Dakota constitution: "The inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected." But the two camps fiercely disagree over whether this language makes Measure 1 a "personhood" amendment—the latest in a series of state proposals defining life as beginning at the moment of conception and giving legal rights to fertilized eggs.

If there was ever a year when that distinction mattered, it's 2014. Democrats have slammed Joni Ernst, the Republican pick for Senate in Iowa, for supporting personhood. And they've hammered Corey Gardner, the Republican nominee for Senate in Colorado, for his past support of a personhood bill. Personhood amendments were developed with the intention of kicking off a legal fight that would eventually overturn Roe v. Wade. But they have failed all three times they have gone before voters—twice in Colorado, and once in Mississippi. Fans of Measure 1 fully recognize the term's toxicity: ND Choose Life, the official ballot committee for supporters, released a memo arguing that Measure 1 "is not a personhood amendment." And Christopher Dodson, director of the North Dakota Catholic Conference, says that Measure 1 opponents use the word "personhood" to describe the amendment "because they're trying to portray it as extreme."

To reproductive rights advocates and opponents of the amendment, that's just semantics. "Part of the reason they may have changed some of the messaging is because they've been defeated in Colorado and Mississippi," says Elizabeth Nash, the senior state issues associate at the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. "But the measure is very similar to the personhood amendments you saw in those states."

<snip>

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/north-dakota-personhood-amendment

[cali]

1. More from The Atlantic on this:

<snip>

The battle over Measure 1 highlights the biggest trend in national abortion politics this November: wide-ranging pro-life ballot initiatives that would alter state constitutions in ways whose long-term repercussions are difficult to predict. In Colorado, voters will cast ballots on Amendment 67, another so-called personhood initiative that would include unborn human beings under the definition of “person” and “child” throughout the state’s criminal code. In Tennessee, Amendment 1 would eliminate all constitutional language protecting the right to abortion, allowing lawmakers to start passing the kinds of regulations and restrictions that have become commonplace not only in North Dakota but in Texas and other states as well.

The stakes are potentially momentous yet hard to gauge, and that’s why abortion-rights advocates are deeply worried. Planned Parenthood groups from across the country have poured almost $1.4 million into the North Dakota campaign.

<snip>

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/north-dakota-personhood-initiative-isnt-conservative/382182/?single_page=true

[postulater]

2. "At any stage of development"

Guess that includes zombies.

Yay North Dakota.

[hobbit709]

3. Republicans need not fear zombies. zombies want to eat brains, which are in short supply among Rs.

[joshdawg]

4. In extremely short supply.

Great post, hobbit.

[Eleanors38]

5. I prefer Anti-choice to "pro-life."

[HereSince1628]

7. I rather prefer self-defense to choice.

Choice carries so little of the gravity involved. And the term 'choice' rather reduces abortion to a menu item based on personal preference. The choice that's involved isn't nearly so facile.

IMO self-defense is rather closer to the sentiment of persons who make the choice.

'Self-defense' also works from a cultural tradition in American law that recognizes personhood isn't a barrier to an act of self-defense.

Moreover it takes advantage of the position of the opposing party, which supports people walking around wearing guns, a behavior that is only rational in terms of self-defense.

But that's just me, I'm not supposed to have a say.

[Eleanors38]

15. I see your point. Maybe the term should be as you expressed.

I'll give this some thought. Thank you.

On edit: Do you recall the Alabama Federal Judge's ruling overturning that state's egregious abortion restrictions? He likened them to laws which might reduce the number of gun shops to only 2 in the state, and concluded in both instances the laws would be unconstitutionally restrictive.

[HereSince1628]

18. No I wasn't aware of that linkage

but I can see how that argument might be forwarded.

[A Simple Game]

6. Would this also mean that you couldn't pull the plug on a brain dead or terminally ill person? n/t

[cali]

11. It can certainly be interpreted that way though those pushing it say not.

[BlueJazz]

8. "life of every human being at any stage of development". Wouldn't they have to define "Human Being"

...first? In other words, THIS is a Human Being?? >>>>

[HereSince1628]

9. Unfortunately, it's pretty much already defined that way.

Human is the accepted common name for the species Homo sapiens. In the same way Mallard is the common name of Anas platyrhynchos.

There is really no doubt that individual diploid reproductive products of Homo sapiens represent individual reproductive products of Homo sapiens. If Human is that common name for Homo sapiens, then the individual diploid reproductive products of Humans are the same thing as the individual diploid reproductive products of Homo sapiens.

Legal rights, not withstanding, in biological terms there is no change of type/species in the circuit through any stages of the human life-cyle...whether or not a person is using common names or scientific names.

That common sense understanding in American culture, which is rational under biology, is exactly what has long been exploited by the anti-abortion advocates. It leaves the choice movement looking like it is using parsing/sophistry to make biological distinctions where there are none.

IMO, it is the attempt to make unborn individual diploid reproductive products of Homo sapiens non-human that challenges what is popular common sense. I think it follows from two steps, one correct and the other a conflation. First comes the recognition of the legal differences between person and human, and then comes the mistake of labeling anything without legal standing as non-human.

[BlueJazz]

12. Good post and what you say is true and informative. On a funnier note, could a person file for...

...a disabled child as soon as she gets pregnant..and could she go down to the Social Security office and get a SS number for her "Human Being Child".

Seems to open a box of WTF that I would not want to deal with.

[HereSince1628]

13. Or, somewhat pragmatically, is the baby entitled to prenatal care by the state?

Really, I'm in favor of women having the right to abortion.

I think the personhood amendments push the controversy toward reliance on self-defense as a justification for abortion.

The anti-choice side thinks that argument can't be made. Many choice advocates find the implication of abortion as homicide, in any form--even justifiable, abhorent, it's only that emotion that prevents the self-defense argument from being fully developed.

[HockeyMom]

14. Death Certificates for every menstrual period?

Who knows if there might be a person in that pad or tampon????? Insanity.

[HereSince1628]

16. That's is of course based on the conflation that is so problematic, isn't it?

So you've missed or dismissed the point.

Persons exist under the law. Death certificates are legal documents produced for various reasons that serve social interest.

Gametes don't have personhood, but gametes produced by Homo sapiens are Homo sapiens a species commonly referred to as human. No one, to my knowledge has attempted to establish -that gametes are persons- in American law, at least not yet.

I do understand how dismissing biological realities, such as consistency of species type throughout an entire life-cycle is an attempt to stem the dissonance that results from percieving abortion as a form of homicide.

It's quite understandable why there is such interest in emphasizing any pre-natal Homo sapies lacking legal personhood as non-human.

But the end of the use of the argument that abortion should be outlawed because it is homicide, which is the core of the anti-choice position, comes when abortion is moved under the umbrella of justifiable self-defense.

[davidpdx]

10. It will be interesting to see whether it passes

Hopefully it doesn't, but you never know which state will decide to hide their ignorance and pass it.

[JoePhilly]

17. Every sperm is sacred.

[Thav]

19. And they still

don't give a rip about the baby after it's born. In fact, that child is a drain on society and the parents are horrible people if they're receiving any form of societal help.

You cannot be pro-life if you do not care about the life after it has left the womb.