PersonhoodUSA’s Radical, Fetal-Separatist Agenda

This article was amended at 8:40 pm on Monday, October 25th, 2010 to include several paragraphs inadvertently left off the end of the original post.

Next week, people in Colorado will be voting on Amendment 62, a ballot measure sponsored by PersonhoodUSA. This organization seeks to establish the “pre-born,” including eggs, embryos and fetuses as separate “legal persons with protection under the law.”

This organization claims that its goal is to end the “injustice of abortion.” In fact they are promoting a Fetal Separatist movement, one that is trying to legally separate pregnant women and the fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses inside of them. Their efforts are dangerous to all pregnant women including those who go to term, those who expect confidential medical care, and those who want to preserve their right to life and liberty.

The argument that eggs and fetuses may be treated as if they are legally independent of the women who carry them has been used to deprive pregnant women of their status as full constitutional persons.  Angela Carder was forced to have cesarean surgery to advance the rights of the fetus inside of her. Shortly after the surgery both the baby and Ms. Carder died. Ms. Carder was deprived of her right to life. Recently, a pregnant woman was kept prisoner in a Florida hospital because doctors believed that doing so would advance the rights and health of the fetus. She nevertheless suffered a stillbirth. Ms. Burton was deprived of her right to liberty. Although courts in both cases eventually held that these deprivations of life and liberty were wrong, adopting fetal separatist measures would allow outsiders to take similar actions whenever they disagreed with the pregnant woman.

In New Jersey, V.M. refused to pre-authorize cesarean surgery. Although she had a successful vaginal birth, New Jersey hospital workers reported her to child welfare authorities for medical neglect of her unborn child. This report led to the removal of the newborn from her parent’s custody. As a result, V.M. her husband and her child have been deprived of their fundamental liberty interests in family life.

When doctors at a hospital learned that Laura Pemeberton was attempting to have a home birth, fetal separatist arguments became the basis for sending a sheriff to her home. She was taken into custody, forcibly restrained while in active labor, judged without representation and forced to undergo cesarean surgery, depriving her of her right to liberty, privacy, bodily integrity, medical decision-making and due process of law.

When CT in Iowa was five months pregnant and fell down a flight of stairs, she assumed that she had a right to privacy in her medical information. Hospital staff, however, reported her to the police and she was arrested – deprived of her liberty – for the made up crime of “attempted fetal homicide.”

Fetal separatists analogize fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses to African-American slaves who were once  “denied their humanity” and “stripped [of] their personhood.” They suggest that their goal is simply continuing an American tradition of expanding membership in the population of Constitutional persons. But, in fact, fetal separatism, in the guise of adding one group to the Constitutional population will do something unprecedented in US history: subtract another.

When former slaves were added to the constitutional population, this did not in any way diminish the constitutional rights or personhood of any other people in the United States. Although slaveholders lost significant power and privilege to enslave, and exploit others, they did not lose anything in terms of their status as constitutional persons under the law.

Similarly, when women of all races were added to the population of Constitutional persons through the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote, and Supreme Court cases prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex neither the constitutional rights nor the personhood of men was diminished. While men lost significant power over their wives and daughters as well as advantages in the worlds of work, education and civic life, they did not lose their status as full constitutional persons under the law.

In contrast and as the examples above demonstrate, efforts to legally disconnect fetuses and to grant them entirely independent constitutional status would not merely add a new group to the Constitutional population: it would effectively denaturalize pregnant women, removing from them their status as Constitutional persons.

Passing measures that legally segregate eggs, embryos and fetuses from the pregnant woman will also result in a new regime of separate and unequal. Pregnant women could be sued, subject to child welfare interventions, or even arrested if they engaged in activities at work and at home that might be thought to create a risk to the life of the “preborn.” Legally separating the “pre-born” from the pregnant women who sustain them will ensure that in jobs, education, and civic life, pregnant women will, once again, be unequal to men.

When African-Americans and women of all races were added to the Constitutional population those individuals were empowered. Adding the “pre-born” to the Constitution will not free fetuses nor will it empower them. Rather, it will empower outsiders including police officers, prosecutors, judges, and child protection workers to advance their beliefs about what is right for the “pre-born” and to do so by controlling the pregnant women who carry, nurture and sustain them.

People voting on a “personhood measure” in Colorado next week should remember what is really at stake — the personhood of pregnant women.

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

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

  • arekushieru

    This is an issue that is tangential but indirectly related to abortion.  It does clearly highlight the same point that we are in consensus on when it comes to abortion, though, that depriving a woman of her rights to medical privacy and bodily autonomy, you deprive a woman of her right to life AND her status as a person.  I give this… two thumbs up!

  • joyfulc

    They say that a fertilized egg or a fetus is a person, then I’d like to ask about their stance on a pregnant woman having sex. Is that sexual abuse of a child? After all, the “person” is involved in the sex act. And is unable to consent. So is that rape?


    Not to offend anyone, but it just seems to me to illustrate the ridiculousness of viewing a fertilized egg or fetus as being a separate person.

  • goatini

    is to legislatively render all female citizens Wards Of The State, if they are between the ages of menarche and menopause. 


    Which, of course, would effectively negate every modern advance towards full equality and citizenship for women, beginning with the Nineteenth Amendment.

  • invalid-0

    Reductio ad absurdum anyone?

    legislatively render all female citizens Wards Of The State”

    pregnant woman having sex. Is that sexual abuse of a child?”

  • prochoiceferret

    Reductio ad absurdum anyone?


    Yes, the whole zygote-as-person thing is pretty reduced and absurd.

  • purplemistydez

    Great article.  Hopefully the people of Colorado won’t vote for this.

  • prowomen

    Isn’t this being challenged as unconstitutional since the 14th amendment recognizes only those “born” as citizens?  Also, there is no such word as “pre-born.”  The term is unborn.


    In 2008, Catholic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said, “And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that’s wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons.”  The Court has also cited judicial precedent in holding that the fetus is not a “person” as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment.

  • crowepps

    Pre-born isn’t a word that makes any sense, but it RESONATES with people since it carries in it all sorts of implications about how the abortion happens minutes before birth and the fetus (which may actually look like grotesquely UNhuman) is an eensy teensy baby.  The same people vehemently reject the word pre-dead for a fetus that won’t survive birth so it helps to think of it more as an advertising brandname than an actual word.


    Using the same word coining logic, I suppose the attempts to avoid the providing the Morning After Pill to rape victims are being objected to as ‘blatant discrimination against the pre-conceived’, since women who are forced to have sex ‘have a moral obligation to GET pregnant’.

  • prochoiceferret

    The same people vehemently reject the word pre-dead for a fetus that won’t survive birth so it helps to think of it more as an advertising brandname than an actual word.


    Hmm. Perhaps these pre-pro-choicers will one day become post-ignorant?

  • crowepps

    After all, first you let people THINK and then the next thing you know they are asking QUESTIONS and making DECISIONS on their own, and we can’t have that!

  • mea

    I have a friend who is anti-choice. he believes that a fertilized egg is a person. We discuss this frequently and I guess we will never have a meeting of the minds. I tell him that no one is “Pro-Abortion,” one is only for women having the right to do what is best in their situation in they become pregnant. I faced that choice when I was young and I chose to have my baby, but I still firmly believe in women’s rights to have an abortion.

    That said, my friend’s wife had a couple of miscarriages, or what we know are spontaneous abortions. I asked him, “When is the last time you attended a memorial service for a miscarriage?” He never has an answer. I tell him that it is obvious society does not consider the results of a miscarriage a person or we would have memorial services for them. Doesn’t this make sense?

  • auntbec

    Between the story of the 14 year old who was used as “bait” for a rapist, forgotten about, and raped, and the story that people in Colorado could be this blatantly ignorant, my heart and my mind just cannot wrap itself around all of this.  I thought we were in the 21st century and women had the right to …..?

  • plume-assassine

    This is without a doubt one of the best articles I’ve read on this site. Thank you for writing this! It is transparently clear that PersonhoodUSA’s efforts are meant to depersonalize women, in the same way that the four women in the background stories were violated and stripped of their rights.