Here we go again. Despite two previous failed attempts to get the people of Colorado to define a fertilized egg as a person, the so-called “Personhood” campaign is back. And yes, they want another revote.
So what do they think will be different this time? They hope a longer definition might garner them more support.
Via the New American:
While past personhood amendment language has been confined to a one-sentence declaration that defines unborn children as persons under the law beginning at conception, the new proposed amendment states: “In order to affirm basic human dignity, be it resolved that the right to life in this Constitution applies to all innocent persons.” The amendment goes on to declare, among other specifications, that the “intentional killing of any innocent person is prohibited,” and that “no innocent child created through rape or incest shall be killed for the crime of his or her father.”
As for the pertinent definitions, the proposed amendment specifies that “‘person’ applies to every human being regardless of the method of creation,” and that a “‘human being’ is a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development.” Additionally, the amendment specifies that a “child” includes “a human being prior to and during birth.”
In explaining the more detailed language, Mason recalled that in past initiatives, Planned Parenthood mounted campaigns against the amendment built on what Mason called “lies and scare tactics” that misrepresented the impact of the amendment. “The new personhood language prevents those falsehoods by making it absolutely clear what the amendment can and cannot do,” explained Mason, “while still protecting every child from his or her earliest stages.”
Just because the explanation is longer doesn’t mean that it isn’t still banning all forms of abortion, any birth control that could impede implantation (such as IUDs), some IVF procedures, and the termination of ectopic pregnancies. But I suppose if they lose, they can always try again in 2014.