A Denver television station, on its web site, dissects an advertisement currently running on the station to get at the truth of what Proposition 48 is really about. Prop 48 is the Colorado initiative that would amend the state constitution to bestow all legal rights afforded to citizens onto fertilized eggs both inside and outside women’s bodies.

The article attempts to suss out fact from fiction from the ad put out by the campaign working against the initiative, Protect Families, Protect Choice. But how easy is it to analyze statements put forth in the ad for "truth" when the initiative itself is written in such a manner as to leave both the consequences and impact of it as completely and entirely indefinable and unknown?

What we do know is that if the Colorado constitution were to be amended to imbue fertilized eggs with full human rights, it would be almost inconceivable (excuse the pun) that many forms of hormonal contraception wouldn’t be automatically criminalized. After all, if the birth control pill works to stop a fertilized egg from embedding into the uterus (as some pills do), wouldn’t this be considered murder? And what of the woman who miscarries? How would this be anything but accidental murder?  VIDEO: Does Life Begin at Fertilization?

As far as abortion goes, since abortion is the termination of a pregnancy and a pregnancy is generally defined as the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus, it would stand to reason that abortion procedures would be outlawed in Colorado at tremendous risk to the health and lives of women and their families. But, as the article points out, Kristi Burton the young woman who conceived of the initiative, has claimed many times that she is not thinking about the consequences of such an amendment.

The article goes on to analyze parts of the ad for true or false claims, opinion vs. fact, but at the end it makes this statement:

The assumption made by Amendment 48 opponents is that it would provide the legal framework for methods considered to be destructive to a fertilized egg to be considered murder, regardless of implantation. If a fertilized egg is aborted, then, there would be a legal basis to prosecute the parties involved.

Since it is not explicitly referred to within the ballot or the proposed constitutional language, this may only be considered speculation.

Well, sure, of course it is speculation. I guess that’s the point – one can only speculate as to what kind of impact this initiative may have on the lives and health of women and their families. I would think that knowledge right there would be more than enough to have Coloradoans run for the hills. Unless you don’t find it that important to understand the full intent and impact of a potential change to your state constitution, you may want to demand, as a citizen, a bit more information from groups that push forward with such measures, no? I suppose one can call the above "fact checking" but, really, such a statement does more to prove the point that the opposition is trying to make than the television ad itself: since the initiative does not explicitly state or reference any potential impacts or consequences, anything voters read from the proposed measure will be pure speculation –  yikes.