Nevada Fails To Move Forward On Personhood Amendment


It looks like a fertilized egg is actually not a person, according to the people of Nevada, as Personhood USA failed to get enough signatures to put an amendment on the 2010 ballot.

From the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

A Christian-based group’s anti-abortion petition will not appear on the November ballot.

A national leader of the Personhood-USA movement said Thursday the group won’t be able to collect the required number of signatures by Tuesday’s deadline.

The proposed constitutional amendment would halt abortions in Nevada.

PersonhoodUSA co-founder Keith Mason said the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and Planned Parenthood through litigation have “run out the clock on us” and prevented the organization from collecting the required 97,002 signatures to put the issue before voters.

The state Supreme Court still has not ruled on Personhood Nevada’s appeal of a lower court decision that prevented the group from circulating its petition.

Carson City District Judge James T. Russell ruled Jan. 8 that the Personhood petition could not be circulated because its language was so vague that voters would not understand its intentions.

Personhood Nevada appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court held a hearing but has not yet issued its decision.

Personhood USA says they will return to try and gather signatures again in time for 2012.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • bei1052

    It looks like a fertilized egg is actually not a person, according to the people of Nevada, as Personhood USA failed to get enough signatures to put an amendment on the 2010 ballot.

     

    Your own source states that the group was disallowed from collecting signatures by a court injunction (which has yet to be ruled on, btw). That’s a far cry from “it looks like a fertilized egg is actually not a person, according to the people of Nevada”, when the people of Nevada were never actually given a chance to sign the petition, much less vote on it.

  • amyc

    So your advice would be for legislation and constitutional amendments that people will vote on to be so vague that people don’t realize they are voting away their rights. Their petition wouldn’t have to be vague if they actually thought that enough people agreed with them. Even so, national law trumps state law. A state’s constitution cannot go against the national constitution. According to the US Supreme Court, women have a right to choose when they want to have children. If the state did eventually pass an amendment, it would be challenged.

  • bei1052

    So you think that voters are so dumb that they don’t realize what they’re voting on or what the petitions they sign mean? I don’t think so. It’s the same objection that PP tried to raise in Alaska concerning the parental notification law. Just because one thinks it’s vague doesn’t mean it is, nor does it mean that the majority of people who vote on it don’t know what it means, either.

     

    Of course this’ll go the courts. That’s kind of the point. That’s how you get things changed *hint hint, wink wink*.

  • bei1052

    *See above*

  • crowepps

    It’s the same objection that PP tried to raise in Alaska concerning the parental notification law.

    The objection to the petition in Alaska was that the petition did not include the entire law, in that it did NOT include the fact that doctors would face serious criminal penalties.  Some people might be willing to support a law that was a misdemeanor with punishment of fine for failure to notify without being willing to support passing a law that is a felony and imposes jail time.

  • colleen

    No bei, we think the american right is always manipulative and dishonest.

  • amyc

    Yes I am saying that a lot of voters don’t actually know what they are voting for. Plus, if a law is vague then it’s essentially a bad law. Laws are made to be very precise for good reasons. When laws are vague, lawyers, judges, and prosecutors tend to not know how to interpret it. Police officers also don’t know how to enforce vague laws.

  • amyc

    In Texas the punishment for a doctor who provides an abortion to a minor could be the death penalty. They recently made it a capital offense. There hasn’t been a case that deals with this yet though, but I would be willing to say that I don’t think the Supreme Court would approve of this use of the death penalty.

  • mechashiva

    Actually, there is a strong case to be made that voters don’t always know what they are voting on. It’s a big problem here in CA with our ballot initiative system. Campaigns are often misleading, and even the summaries of the initiatives in the voter information pamphlet can leave smart people unsure of what a yes or a no vote actually means (due to unclear wording). Also, voters often do not have the full picture of the long-term effects of initiatives. Such voter misinformation/miseducation/misreading has been the cause of a great deal of strife.

  • wendy-banks

    No bei, we think the american right is always manipulative and dishonest.

    That’s because they’ve proven time and time again that they are. It’s like a compulsive lier saying ‘Trust me just this once’. I think not…

  • crowepps

    It would be interesting, if one had enough time, to collect all the protestations from the various groups advocating personhood that “this has nothing to do with birth control”, since, obviously, this is not just a misrepresentation but a BIG LIE.  Such amendments would indeed create problems in accessing any form of birth control that it can be ARGUED affects an existing zygote.  Mind you, not just the ones that actually DO affect zygotes but also those where it’s possible for some non-medically trained, non-scientific ProLife hysteric to SPECULATE that it does. 

  • ahunt

    So Bei…what do you think of the proposed legislation? Just wondering.