Personhood … It’s Time to Start Demanding TWO votes!

Most of us were thrilled to see the end of the 112th Congress come to pass and the end to all the onerous bills that were proposed during that session.  It would seem, however, that a number of members of the GOP’s “REPUBLIBAN” learned nothing from the election and are once again trudging forward in their attempts to once again define life as beginning with fertilization of an egg.  To that end, they have once again re-introduced the “Sanctity of Human Life” bill, HR23, on January 3, 2013.  That bill has subsequently been referred to the House Judiciary committee.

Thus far, eighteen members of the REPUBLIBAN have signed on as co-sponsors:

1. Carter, John [R-TX31]
2. Conaway, Michael [R-TX11]
3. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX27]
4. Fleming, John [R-LA4]
5. Franks, Trent [R-AZ8]
6. Gibbs, Bob [R-OH7]
7. Gingrey, Phil [R-GA11]
8. Huelskamp, Tim [R-KS1]
9. Jones, Walter [R-NC3]
10. Palazzo, Steven [R-MS4]
11. Pearce, Stevan “Steve” [R-NM2]
12. Roby, Martha [R-AL2]
13. Roe, David [R-TN1]
14. Rogers, Harold “Hal” [R-KY5]
15. Ryan, Paul [R-WI1]
16. Terry, Lee [R-NE2]
17. Westmoreland, Lynn [R-GA3]
18. Kline, John [R-MN2]

Even though a single-cell fertilized egg cannot support itself, H.R. 23 would exploit our legislative process to impose a specific religious definition of human life in place of the commonly accepted medical one. It is ludicrous that zealots would choose to bestow full constitutional rights to a single cell, while at the same time, they’re actually pursuing legal action to deny rights to an entire class of U.S. Citizens — the LGBT community at large.

The result of passage of a bill such as this would be a host of complications :

1. There is no absolute guarantee that fertilization will result in “pregnancy.”  How are they going to enforce the implantation of a fertilized egg to a uterine wall?  What’s next, that if we fail to get pregnant, we’ll be subjected to mandatory monitoring of our vaginal secretions to see if we just happen to pass a fertilized egg?  Then what?  Will we be charged with murder or some other ludicrous charge of failure to “whatever”?
2. What happens if a woman has a miscarriage?  Will she be investigated to see if she willfully caused the miscarriage and thus the death of the cell, embryo, or fetus?  Will they then devise increasing penalties based on the degree of development?
3. If they define life upon egg fertilization, it ends “all” abortions, including rape, incest, and the life of the mother.  So here’s the conundrum:  If the egg/embryo/fetus is killing the mother, are they going to charge the egg/embryo/fetus with murder when she dies or are they just going to say, “well, it must have been God’s will”?
4. Abortion would no longer be legal in the United States but would continue to be legal elsewhere in the World.  Are they going to pull the passports of women during their child-bearing years?  What happens if they find out she left the US and got an abortion in another country?  Would she be arrested upon coming through customs?  What If the pregnancy she aborted abroad  resulted initially from rape?  Would the rapist have a cause of action against her, essentially violating her twice?
5. These guys continually rant about needing to enact “comprehensive” legislation, yet they’ve failed to address the issue of taxation as part of this bill.  If the fertilized egg is granted full constitutional rights, why hasn’t a tax deduction been authorized for that fertilized egg?
6. How will it affect in-vitro fertilization?  Doctors currently implant more than one egg to get at least one to take.  Then if too many take, they use a procedure called selective reduction to reduce the number of embryos to a realistic number the woman can carry to term (usually one or two). The cost would go up immensely in that only one cell could be fertilized and implanted at a time, else leftover embryos, with their newly legislated “right to life” would have no uteri in which to thrive.  What would then happen to doctor or lab that fertilized those eggs?  What happens to the woman who get’s implanted but can’t bring the that implanted egg to term?
7. What happens when that fertilized egg fails to develop as expected, or when that baby is born with birth defects?  Is the state going to sue the mother for somehow harming that developing fetus while in utero, thus causing those defects?  Is that just genetics and the luck of the draw, or was it “her” fault some how and blame needs to be lain?
8. And then, of course, there’s birth control … you know, those little pills that make the uterus hostile to the implantation of a fertilized egg.  Well, you can kiss those goodbye.  Hope you’re good at using the rhythm method or you’ll be having one baby after another — or worse — you’ll be being investigated either for one miscarriage after another, or for “failure to provide a nurturing uterus.”

REPUBLIBAN zealots think “life” is a black or white issue.  It’s just NOT that simple.  There are a myriad of grays in that analysis and no absolutes.  As fond as they are of referring to their sacred “constitution” … maybe they should take a few minutes to read it, and finally realize that women have a constitutional right of freedom from being oppressed by their religion and we also have a constitutional right of privacy in our bedrooms.  I’m sorry, but I am a female, a woman, a member of the human race, not just an incubator for some man’s seed.  “It’s looking more like women need to start taking early pregnancy tests to the voting booth — and if the test comes out positive, they need to start demanding to get two votes.” (Karen Webb, Oklahoma Observer)

Here’s a copy of the text of the bill:

113th CONGRESS — 1st Session — H. R. 23 — January 3, 2013

To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. BROUN of Georgia (for himself, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. PALAZZO, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. TERRY, Mr. CARTER, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mr. JONES, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mrs. ROBY, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. CONAWAY, and Mr. FLEMING) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

A BILL

To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Sanctity of Human Life Act’.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION.

In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States–

(1) the Congress declares that–

(A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and

(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

(2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act:

(1) FERTILIZATION- The term ‘fertilization’ means the process of a human spermatozoan penetrating the cell membrane of a human oocyte to create a human zygote, a one-celled human embryo, which is a new unique human being.

(2) CLONING- The term ‘cloning’ means the process called somatic cell nuclear transfer, that combines an enucleated egg and the nucleus of a somatic cell to make a human embryo.

(3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING- The terms ‘human’ and ‘human being’ include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of development, created by the process of fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent.

Related Posts:

Roe v. Wade and Fetal Personhood: Juridical Persons Are Not Natural Persons, And Why it Matters

Reassuring Our Rights

— by Nancy Northrup, Center for Reproductive Rights

With a unanimous decision yesterday by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, we’ve won our legal challenge to strike down a “personhood” ballot initiative that would have given every fertilized egg the full legal rights of a person.

We challenged this initiative as soon as it went on the ballot—arguing that this frontal assault on reproductive rights clearly violated the U.S. Constitution. The Oklahoma court agreed.

It is not acceptable, they ruled, to propose amendments to the state constitution that are “repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.”

“Repugnant” is a fitting word to describe this initiative—one of the most extreme and dangerous anti-choice measures we’ve seen.

If passed, the amendment not only would have outlawed abortion in all cases—including in cases of rape or incest, fetal anomalies, or risk to a woman’s life—but also would have banned many forms of birth control and seriously threatened fertility treatments such as IVF.

We don’t need to imagine the dire consequences if this initiative had become law. The Center for Reproductive Rights is working every day in countries around the world where anti-choice zealots have successfully amended their constitutions to define life as beginning at conception—with devastating results.

In El Salvador, for example, many women are driven to clandestine and dangerous abortions. Others are thrown in jail for breaking the law—even those suffering from miscarriages. All women live under a dark cloud of suspicion.

We’re challenging the El Salvador ban in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—and we’ll continue to fight these measures wherever they arise.

Today, however, this threat to the women of Oklahoma has been shut down. And in affirming our request to strike down the ballot measure, the court has also struck a powerful blow against the tactics of those who seek to vote down the rights of others, and to enshrine their hostility to women’s lives, health, and rights in the laws of the land.

Before Romney Gets Any Closer to the White House …

By now you’ve probably seen the news: The amazing — and amazingly negative — Republican race for president is all but over. Mitt Romney is almost certainly our opponent in this election.

That means America will have a very clear choice come November.

The President believes that this is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and that without a strong and thriving middle class, we’ll never have the growth we need.

That’s why he’s fighting for an economy rooted in our fundamental values — one in which Americans can not only find work, but where folks who work hard can get ahead, responsibility is rewarded, and everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street, plays by the same rules.

He’s fighting for an economy that’s built to last, with a genuine and sustained commitment to education and training, advanced manufacturing, and homegrown, American energy.

He’s fighting for a country in which every child has a chance, and every American, after a lifetime of work, can count on retiring with dignity and security.

And he’s fighting to ensure that the responsibility for delivering on that future is broadly shared, which means ending the budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy that add to our deficits and crowd out the very investments we need to grow.

Mitt Romney has a different, and frighteningly familiar, view. He thinks you grow our economy from the top down. He’d take us back to an economy based on outsourcing, risky financial schemes, and massive tax cuts for the wealthy. He’d return to the policy of allowing Wall Street, Big Oil, and other special interests to write their own rules.

But that’s not all. Below are five other things that should give Americans pause.

1. Romney’s positions are the most radically anti-women of any candidate in a generation: He supports banning all abortions, backed a so-called “personhood” amendment that could make certain forms of birth control illegal, and says he would “get rid of” federal funding for Planned Parenthood that provides preventive services like cancer screenings for millions of women.
2. Romney would repeal Obamacare. Insurance companies would once again be allowed to run up premiums, unjustifiably deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, drop patients when they get sick, discriminate against women by charging them more for coverage than men, and spend more of your premium dollars on CEO profits and bonuses instead of your actual health care.
3. Romney is a risk when it comes to foreign policy and national security. On many of these questions, he has shifted his position for political reasons, even within the same campaign. His only clear commitment is to endless wars: He has no plan to end the war in Afghanistan and would leave our troops there indefinitely. He called the President’s decision to bring our troops home from Iraq by last Christmas “tragic.”
4. Despite the lessons of recent history, Romney would double down on the disastrous tax policies that handed windfalls to the wealthy, but stacked the deck against the middle class. Under Romney, millionaires and billionaires would get a $250,000 tax cut, while families with kids making less than $40,000 a year would, on average, actually see their taxes go up. To the surprise of no one, Romney also opposes the Buffett Rule. He would allow millionaires to continue to take advantage of loopholes and special deals that often allow them to pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. And he supports tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.
5. Romney would end Medicare as we know it — replacing it with a voucher scheme that would drive profits for insurance companies by forcing seniors to purchase private insurance, paying whatever costs a voucher wouldn’t cover out of their own limited budgets.

Romney and his special-interest allies are going to spend the next seven months trying to deny, downplay, or hide these facts from voters. It’s on us to speak the truth.

So print these out, post them on your fridge, and share them on Facebook. Send this list around to friends who are on the fence.

When and if your mother-in-law, or cousin, or best friend claims that Romney is “moderate,” you need to know what to say.

You are the President’s voice out there, and I can’t stress enough how you will be the difference between voters hearing our message or not. The more Americans learn about Mitt Romney, the less they like him, and the less they trust him.

Sign up to join the Truth Team today — help get the facts out every day, keep the other side honest, and make sure people know the truth about Mitt Romney’s and the President’s records:

http://my.barackobama.com/Join-the-Truth-Team

If people know the truth about Mitt Romney and President Obama, who they are, and their very different plans for this country, there’s no way we can lose this thing.

This race is on!

Big News on Birth Control

— By Stephanie Cutter, Deputy Campaign Manager on January 22, 2012

Here’s some big news that’s going to affect millions of women.

On Friday, the Obama administration announced that soon women won’t have to pay out of pocket for birth control: starting August 1st, many insurance plans nationwide will be required to fully cover contraception without co-pays or deductibles. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, more women can make health care decisions based on what’s best for them—not their insurance company—all while saving hundreds of dollars every year.

Think about how different that is from what the candidates on the other side would do. They’ve all vowed to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and Mitt Romney even said he would have signed a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts to define life as beginning at conception, similar to the notorious state-level “personhood” amendment that could ban many forms of contraception, and even IVF.

That’s why, right now, we need to show that millions of Americans are standing with President Obama on his commitment to women’s health—add your name today.

This news is just one more way the Affordable Care Act ensures that being a woman will no longer be considered a pre-existing condition. Critical preventive services like mammograms and other cancer screenings are now free, and an estimated 1.1 million young women are now covered by their parents’ health plans.

But at the same time, our opponents have been waging a war on women’s health—attempting to defund Planned Parenthood, overturn Roe v. Wade, and everything in between.

The President has stood firm against these attacks on women’s health, but if we’re going to protect our progress—and have the chance to take even more steps forward—we need to show we have his back now, when the heat is on.

Add your name to show your support for women’s access to health care today.

 

• Share via Facebook
• Share via Twitter
• Share via Email

 

Personhood Won’t Be On NV 2012 Ballot

Carson Judge Rules Against Personhood Petition
Seeking To Define Life As Starting At Conception

By Sean Whaley | 6:08 pm December 21st, 2011

Updated 6:09 pm December 21st, 2011

CARSON CITY – A Carson City district judge today ruled an initiative petition to amend the state constitution to define human life as beginning at conception was too vague and so could not be circulated to qualify for the November 2012 ballot.

Carson City District Judge James Wilson ruled from the bench after an hour of argument from attorneys representing Personhood Nevada and the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the proposal in court.

“It looks to me like this is unnecessarily broad,” Wilson said at one point in the hearing. He also said it was vague and did not clearly state what its intent was. The description of effect required for such ballot measures was also unclear and could not be rehabilitated, he said in his ruling.

Olaf Vancura and Candy Best with Personhood Nevada talk about their proposed initiative petition before a court hearing today. / Photo: Nevada News Bureau.

Attorney Gary Kreep, with theUnited States Justice Foundation based in California, represented Personhood Nevada. He said the proposal to amend the Nevada constitution to define a person as starting at “biological development” was clear and did not violate the requirement that ballot proposals deal with a single subject.

He acknowledged that the effects  of the proposed change to the constitution to include the phrase “the term ‘person’ includes every human being” could be numerous, however, as the definition was applied to various areas of state law.

But Kreep said the ramifications of the proposal would become clear to voters as the measure was debated before election day.

ACLU attorney Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, representing Nevada voters opposed to the proposed constitutional amendment, argued that registered voters would not have a clear understanding of what the effect of the proposal would be if asked to sign the petition to place the measure on the ballot.

Opponents of the proposal were happy with Wilson’s ruling.

“Obviously we’re pleased that the court agreed with us that it’s important that voters fully understand the sweeping impacts that these initiatives would have and we’re pleased to see that this one cannot go forward,” said Elisa Cafferata, president and CEO of Nevada Advocates for Planned Parenthood Affiliates.

Kreep said after the hearing the group will have to assess whether to appeal the decision to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Personhood group lost on similar grounds in 2010 when it tried to circulate a similar petition to Nevada voters.

Personhood Nevada could potentially file a revised initiative petition with the secretary of state’s office, but then the legal review process would begin all over again.

“The abortion providers, according to Congressional testimony by former employees, make millions and hundreds of millions of dollars off of selling body parts,” Kreep said following Wilson’s ruling. “They get hundreds of millions of dollars in state aid. And it feeds the attorneys who litigate for them to keep the death machine going.”

Wilson on Monday ruled that a separate proposed constitutional amendment submitted by the Nevada Prolife Coalition to outlaw abortion did not violate a rule for ballot measures requiring them to address only a single subject and he allowed the petition to go forward.

Cafferata said opponents are still evaluating whether to appeal that decision to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Groups seeking to place a constitutional amendment on the 2012 ballot would need to collect 72,352 valid signatures by June 19. The measure would have to be approved by voters twice, in 2012 and again in 2014, to take effect.

Before the hearing, Olaf Vancura, a member of the Board of Directors of Personhood Nevada, said the proposed amendment is simple: “The sole purpose of this initiative is to clarify the definition of what a person is in the state of Nevada. And that’s why it is a simple seven words, ‘the term person includes every human being.’ ”

The Personhood effort is a national one, with measures being sought for placement on the ballot in several states. One test of the measure came in Mississippi in November, where it was rejected by voters.

---

Audio clips:

Elisa Cafferata, president and CEO of Nevada Advocates for Planned Parenthood Affiliates, says opponents of the Personhood petition are pleased with the ruling:

122111Cafferata :16 cannot go forward.”

Olaf Vancura, a member of the Board of Directors of Personhood Nevada, says the proposals is simple:

122111Vancura :12 every human being.”

Attorney Gary Kreep, representing Personhood Nevada, says abortion supporters make millions on the practice:

122111Kreep :15 death machine going.”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.