Colorado

http://thepulpit.freedomblogging.com/tag/amendment-62/

As my story running Saturday at www.gazette.com points out, Amendment 62 is very similar to Amendment 48, which wanted to grant personhood to the unborn and was on the ballot in the 2008 state elections.

Amendment 48 was defeated at the polls by a wide margin: 73 percent of Coloradans voted no, and 63.3 percent in El Paso County voted no.

So why will Amendment 48 not have a similar fate? Personhood Colorado director Gualberto Garcia Jones said the coalition behind Amendment 62 is much more savvy in discussing the measure, and the cultural and political climate has become more conservative than it was in 2008.

Jones denied that the measure is merely a symbolic gesture, but he acknowledged the coalition has its work cut out for it. He said the climate today might mean a jump of 15 percent in the polls compared to the 2008 results, which would put it at 42 percent — still shy of what it needs but a respectable percentage.

“It’s a stretch, but the positive thing is we did it again, and we are still standing up for truth,” Jones told me. “Whether we win or not, it’s important we keep building.”

If Amendment 62 loses, enough momentum has developed that within a few years a “personhood” amendment may pass, seemed to be what Jones was saying. He gave the example of a similar amendment in South Dakota that took eight tries to pass.

“A few things in the political spectrum have a black and white stand, and this is one of them,” Jones said. “When you talk about inherent value of a human being, that should be black and white.”

“If God wants it, it will pass.”

http://durangoherald.com/sections/Features/Columnists/Population_Matters…

Abortionist Grossman Fails His Own Imaginary “8th Grade Health Class”

Abortionist Richard Grossman falsely claimed in the Durango Herald that “Anyone who graduated from an eighth-grade health class knows that the start of the biological development is the human egg.”

Dr. Grossman says that the problem with Colorado’s Amendment 62 is that it claims that my “eggs”– even those still safely ensconced in my ovaries – are people.

Amendment 62 does not talk about eggs, nor does it apply to eggs. It applies to people. Amendment 62 simply says that the term ‘person’ shall apply to every human being. Does abortionist Grossman really believe that women have thousands of human beings hanging out in their ovaries?

As someone who has not graduated medical school, or practiced ‘medicine’ for many years as Dr. Grossman has, I could find this to be an intimidating dilemma. Logic and reason tell me that Grossman is wrong. Yet how can I, a mere high school graduate and stay-at-home mother, possibly argue with such an education?

As I pondered this question of the beginning of a human being’s biological development, I realized that I had but one recourse available to me, one that nearly every member of my generation has at their disposal – I Googled it.

Imagine my surprise when the very first entry that appeared in my Google search was from Wikipedia. And here is what I found: “Biological Development: Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm cell, and the female gamete, the egg, fuse to produce a zygote.” If Wikipedia knows what the beginning of biological development is, and I know what it is, why doesn’t Dr. Grossman?

It seems that Dr. Grossman, who kills ‘unwanted’ babies by abortion on Wednesday and delivers ‘wanted’ babies into parents’ arms at the local Catholic hospital on Thursday, must have been sleeping in that eighth grade health class he mentioned.

A little bit of further research showed me that the medical, scientific, and legal communities do not regard oocytes to be humans any more than they regard sperm to be humans. No, a new human being – a person – is present from the beginning of biological development, which very clearly means the fusion of sperm and oocyte, when, as world-renowned geneticist Dr. Jerome LeJeune stated, “After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.” Knowing for certain that life begins at fertilization means that Amendment 62 must pass, and everyone who has a shred of basic decency should vote Yes to recognize that all human beings are people.

The evidence is overwhelming – human development begins with fertilization. Pick up a human embryology text book and you will see that Dr. Grossman clearly does not know what he is talking about – either that, or he’s intentionally lying. Human embryology experts, lawyers, scientists, and bioethicists are familiar with the phrase ‘beginning of biological development’. So why isn’t an abortion “expert” like Dr. Richard Grossman aware of it?

I found it shocking that Dr. Grossman told the Durango Herald that “When a woman says a fetus is a person, I think it is one” several months ago, and now he is saying that eggs are people? Maybe it’s not so shocking when you realize that Grossman’s abortion profiteering would be halted by the passage of Amendment 62.

I think that Grossman needs a crash course in basic biology, preferably before he continues to practice ‘medicine’. - Jennifer Mason, Denver, Colorado, Personhood Colorado

http://www.cultureandmedia.com/articles/2010/20101022080810.aspx

CMI Commentary: Colorado Personhood Amendment is ‘Social Justice’
HuffPo contributor misses the point about a woman’s right to choose.

By Erin Brown
Culture and Media Institute
October 22, 2010

In typical lefty fashion, the Huffington Post is hiding behind a “qualified” author to make a feminist, pro-abortion argument. Rev Dawn Duval, a minister of social justice (whatever that means) and mother of two, wrote a passionate piece to slam Colorado Amendment 62 and its supporters, while making the misaligned point that in defining a fertilized egg as a person, it removes a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body.

Amendment 62 would apply “the term ‘person’ … to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.” How dare they!

“As a woman, as a mother of two toddlers, and as an ordained minister, I find Amendment 62 offensive,” Duval wrote. “I find it insulting, hurtful and demeaning.” Well, with credentials like that, who could question her disjointed, misinformed arguments?

“The truth about Amendment 62 is that it eliminates a woman’s right to make private decisions about her body, her health, and her future,” Duval claimed. “Amendment 62 assumes that women are not smart enough – it assumes that we are not competent enough, or strong enough, or compassionate enough, or trustworthy enough – to make personal decisions concerning our bodies or our reproductive health.”

Herein lies the first false assumption by Duval: that women’s rights are being taken away. Every single woman in the United States has a right to personal decisions with her body and her reproductive health. Women in this country are extremely well-educated about the birds and the bees and the ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies (and at a very young age, thanks to tax-payer funded public school sex-education programs). But, as liberal, Duval is concerned with when the choices and freedoms occur.

Life-defending conservatives believe that a woman has every right to make decisions about her own personal, reproductive health and that these decisions come before a pregnancy is ever in question. The left would be quick to point out that not every woman is given the choice to become pregnant, such as in cases of rape and incest. Tragically, sexual abuse resulting in unwanted pregnancies does occur, but the numbers are low. According to the National Right to Life Web site, “Women have cited ‘social reasons’, not mother’s health or rape/incest as their motivation in approximately 93% of all abortions.”

And in the case of rape or incest, an innocent life has been created and hangs in the balance (see, French geneticist Jermoe L. LeJeune’s Senate Subcommittee testimony for proof that life begins at conception). Two wrongs do not make a right. The baby should not suffer the consequence of an act of violence against a woman. This point is lost on Duval and the Huffington Post.

Duval includes a quote from NAACP Colorado State Conference president Beatrice Madison that claims lower-income women don’t have equal access to reproductive health rights and that a woman’s right to choose is constitutionally protected. “This is not about the morality, the right and wrong; this is about upholding the constitution, and a woman’s constitutional right to choose,” said Madison at the NAACP Colorado State Conference last week. “This is about ensuring that all women maintain the right to that choice, especially women who are low-income. Reproductive rights should not belong only to the wealthy but to all of us.”

Again, the false assumption is that lower-income women do not have as much opportunity to access reproductive healthcare or the “right to that choice” as wealthy women. Health clinics, high schools nurses’ offices and Planned Parenthood clinics pass out condoms like free candy.

The third false premise Duval asserts is that this is an issue of personal freedom for the mother. “Let there be no doubt, this is a civil rights issue. This audacious invasion is not civil, and it is not right. This is an issue of personal freedom.” But for whom is it an issue of personal freedom? The child in question is given no personal freedom if it is deemed a fetus, a blob of cells, and essentially expendable at the whim of the mother.

Duval asserts that abortions are constitutionally protected. I haven’t seen that clause. But I do know that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are cited in the Declaration of Independence, and the growing human baby is not given that opportunity when the mother chooses to selfishly commit murder.

Similarly, Duval misses the mark again when she claims that “a society that forces a woman to reproduce against her will – a society that prevents a woman and doctors from using advances in technology – is not civil. That society is not right.”

Society has never forced any woman to reproduce; the Colorado amendment is attempting to establish personhood for an unborn fetus, so as to guarantee protection for the fetus from having its life terminated. According to the text of the amendment, it is to provide the person “inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law.” Unwanted babies cannot defend themselves, and the government exists to protect and defend the rights of all people. If Colorado citizens pass Amendment 62, they are merely extending the same rights they have been granted, to the most vulnerable members of society – unborn babies.

That’s something a “minister of social justice” might want to consider.

When does the personhood of a human being begin? That’s the question you’ll have to answer before voting on Amendment 62. It’s not what others believe but what do you believe after being intellectually honest with yourself and your conscience.

The question of personhood can invoke strong emotions. But the question is straight forward and basic. When do you believe personhood begins? Is it when the biological development of a baby’s life begins or when a baby is viable outside the mother’s womb?

So I ask you: Is your unborn child, grandchild, niece, nephew, cousin or neighbor property or a person? If you answer property, vote no on Amendment 62. If you answer a person, vote yes on Amendment 62; the choice is yours.

Clair Orr, Greeley
http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20101023/OPINION/101029883/1028