Sen. Rand Paul marked last week’s anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision by arguing for the urgent passage of his federal ‘personhood’ legislation. But in 2013, he said he was in no rush to pass his own legislation, which, he claimed, was intended to spark a discussion.
January started off with conservatives across the country focusing legislative efforts on—what else—curbing abortion rights.
When determining whether to pardon the Salvadoran women incarcerated on abortion-related charges, the country’s National Criminology Council gave “unfavorable” recommendations for 12 of them based on factors such as “scarce economic resources.”
North Dakota voters on Tuesday rejected a ballot measure to amend the state constitution to define life as beginning at conception. A similar so-called personhood amendment was defeated in Colorado as well.
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.
The amendments in Colorado and North Dakota giving legal rights to fetuses would leave people seeking in vitro fertilization in the dust.
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.
Questioned by debate moderators, Rep. Cory Gardner falsely stated that federal “personhood” legislation is “simply a statement of belief,” and Sen. Mark Udall said he wouldn’t ban later abortions.
Colorado gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez, who has long opposed reproductive rights, said again Thursday that he’s against Colorado’s “personhood” amendments, but he was a co-sponsor in 2005 of federal “personhood” legislation, which he continues to support.