Colorado pro-choice activists on Wednesday decried a bill introduced by state Republicans in response to a grotesque crime against a pregnant woman that would give “personhood” rights to fetuses.
Catholic bishops in Colorado declared a “neutral stance” on this year’s Colorado’s personhood amendment, while bishops in North Dakota urged voters to approve a “personhood” measure its November’s ballot. Both were defeated on Election Day.
A leading “personhood” activist, in the wake of repeated losses, is advocating for his allies to focus on municipal measures instead of statewide initiatives. And a national anti-choice group, launched in October, has announced plans to do just that.
These candidates who rode the 2014 wave to victory hid their own values from the voters, and that speaks volumes about our values.
Voters in Colorado rejected a “personhood” ballot measure seeking to protect “pregnant women and their children” by defining “person” in Colorado’s criminal code to include “unborn human beings.”
Amendment 67 flies in the face of all my Catholic values. By banning birth control, abortion, and in vitro fertilization, this dangerous measure would prevent women from following their consciences when making critical moral decisions.
Colorado’s bishops, speaking through the Colorado Catholic Conference, say they’ve taken a “neutral” stance on Colorado’s “personhood” amendment. But they’ve backed church activity supporting the amendment and are criticizing a campaign against the measure by Catholics for Choice, which claims the bishops have tacitly backed Amendment 67.
A leading supporter of Colorado’s “personhood” amendment disputes a Fox News story reporting that she believes the amendment could make criminals of women.
If Colorado expands the definition of “person” and “child” in its criminal code to include “unborn human beings,” the results would be especially devastating for Latina women and other women of color.
Abortion rights organizations say the Denver Post‘s endorsement of senatorial candidate Cory Gardner contradicts the paper’s long-held editorial stance on choice, among other things.