Amendment 48: Reply to the Gazette

An October 29 editorial by the Colorado Springs Gazette urges voters to "get real," yet in endorsing Amendment 48 the editorial ignores all the realities about the measure and its flaws. Here I reply to the editorial point by point (all indented text is from the editorial).

The moment the egg is fertilized... it becomes a microscopic person with a unique genetic code. Similarly, the acorn becomes an oak tree, in seedling stage, when it germinates. Basic science tells us a sprouted acorn is not a lifeless mass; nor is a zygote.

A fertilized egg has a unique genetic code, true, and it is not a "lifeless mass," for it is definitely alive (as are the unfertilized egg and the sperm cell). But where does the Gazette get the notion that a fertilized egg is a "person," with all the same rights as a newborn? The editorial offers no answer.

Let us review what Amendment 48 would do. It would add a new section to Colorado's constitution stating, "As used in Sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization." Those other articles explicitly bestow the rights to life, liberty, property, equality of justice, and due process of law.

Amendment 48 does not say that a fertilized egg is alive, nor that it has human DNA, nor that it is a potential person. It says that a fertilized egg is a person, with all the legal rights of a born infant. And that is a key point that the Gazette steadfastly ignores.

The comparison to an oak tree is interesting though peripheral. I've never heard a single person call a sprouted acorn an "oak tree," and the two have obvious differences. Regardless, the comparison goes only so far, because a germinated acorn is not contained within and completely dependent upon the body of an oak tree, as a zygote is relative to a woman. That fact matters when it comes to individual rights, yet it is another crucial point the Gazette ignores.

Amendment 48... would establish a rational, scientific, reasonable and legal definition of when human life begins.

This is wrong on two counts. First, Amendment 48 does not attempt to define when life begins; it attempts to define when personhood begins. Second, life does not begin at conception; it precedes conception.

Voting "yes" on Amendment 48 is a vote for honesty, not a decision to outlaw contraception, abortion, cloning or fetal stem cell research. ... The highest court in the land told all 50 states they must protect the rights of mothers to kill fetuses that haven't progressed into the third trimester of pregnancy.

However, the stated goal of the advocates of Amendment 48 is to use the measure in an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. If Amendment 48 were enforced -- which would depend on rolling back federal provisions -- then it would outlaw any act harmful to a fertilized egg, except perhaps abortion to save the woman's life.

But few Americans would support the needless torture of a fetus. Few would support the killing of a preborn child by a drunken driver or an attacker, against the mother's will. Some of America's most pro-choice citizens would object to gratuitous experimentation, abuse or killing of fetuses. A definition of unborn humans as "persons" would aid society in protecting some rights of the unborn, should society choose to do so.

The pregnant woman has rights, and thus anyone who harms her fetus is subject to criminal prosecution. It is simply not possible to harm a fetus without harming the woman in the process, and the woman as the carrier of the fetus has the right to protect it. Amendment 48 is not about banning gratuitous injury to a fetus; it is about granting a fetus full legal rights. (Anyway preventing gratuitous injury does not rest on the definition of personhood; for example, rightly or wrongly the law prevents gratuitous injury to dogs.)

Opponents of the measure have raised alarming concerns. They claim that any woman who takes the morning-after pill, which can abort a fertilized egg, could be convicted of first-degree murder should Amendment 48 pass. They say the law would outlaw abortion, even resulting in criminal investigations each time a woman suffers a natural miscarriage. They don't happen to mention that Colorado is forbidden by federal law to outlaw abortion.

Diana Hsieh and I certainly do discuss the interplay between federal and state law in our paper; see pages 2-3. We also point out that Kristi Burton, sponsor of Amendment 48, wants to use the measure to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I have heard nobody claim that "natural miscarriages" would "each" be subject to criminal investigation. Rather, Hsieh and I have correctly claimed that any miscarriage suspected of being intentional could be subject to criminal prosecution, if Amendment 48 were enforced.

[Opponents] say state law forbids the killing of a "person," so under 48 abortion is doomed. Yet Colorado has the death penalty, and there's no question that death row inmates are "persons."

Nobody argues that any fetus is guilty of felony murder, so the comparison is bizarre.

Abortion is legal in Colorado because state law says it's legal. ...

Yet Amendment 48 is a constitutional provision, and as such it would trump any statute.

Perhaps there was a time of primitive science when intelligent adults didn't know when life begins.

Again, this point is irrelevant, and the claim that life begins at conception is obviously false.

The debate regarding legal rights of a fetus should no longer center on the myth that our science is fuzzy. That's a dishonest discussion. Instead, it should focus on what fetal rights a society shall or shall not defend, with full acknowledgement that a fetus is human from the moment of conception.

The fact that a fetus is human does not establish that it is a person. My kidney is human, for example. As Hsieh and I point out, advocates of Amendment 48 routinely rely on an equivocation on the term "human," jumping from the meaning of having human DNA to personhood without argument or evidence.

If abortion laws depend on a misconception that a fetus isn't human, they will not last. If they're based in a societal decision that unborn humans have limited rights, then abortion laws are safe.

Perhaps the Gazette could offer a single example of somebody who claims that a fetus is something other than human, in the sense of having human DNA.

Amendment 48 would merely bring the legal definition of "person" in line with the fact that a fertilized egg is a person in the earliest stage of life.

You notice what argument the Gazette uses to establish this point: none. Yet the Gazette manages to leave between the lines the only "reason" yet offered for thinking that a fertilized egg is a person: religious faith.

Vote for Amendment 48 or Go to Hell

In a letter to the Craig Daily Press, Lynne Herring offers the following reason for voting for Republicans and Amendment 48:

Please vote yes on 48. I believe, as a Christian, that when I stand before God and He asks me if I did everything in my power to respect and protect life, but I chose not to vote or I vote for the Democratic Party and Obama, who strongly support abortion, that God will hold me just as guilty.

If abortion is murder, and God will hold people guilty of abortion for voting to keep it legal, then apparently the outcome is to burn in hell for all eternity. If there is some other meaning for being held "just as guilty," I can't guess what it is. Will God say, "Naughty, naughty; now walk your naughty self through Heaven's gates"? If so, that's not much of a deterrent. I'm not really up on people's differing ideas of purgatory, so maybe that would come into play.

Herring makes a peculiar claim: "Pregnancies after rape and incest are very rare, and no one would condemn any woman for getting an abortion because of violence done to her." Wait just a minute. Amendment 48 declares a fertilized egg to be a person. If so, then aborting an embryo that resulted from rape is murder. And Colorado Right to Life and other organizations believe precisely that.

Herring had better think about her position a little more carefully. If she fails to "condemn any woman for getting an abortion because of violence done to her," then Herring is by her own standards endorsing murder, and God will hold her "just as guilty" as the women who get an abortion. Herring is dangerously close to the flames of hell, by her own reasoning.

But of course Herring's views are nonsense through and through. For reasons to oppose Amendment 48, see the web page devoted to the issue by the Coalition for Secular Government.

Palin's Prayer Warriors

The October 23 Denver Daily News published a story about Sarah Palin's views on God and the election. I found a rough transcript of her interview with James Dobson, on which the news story was based.

Dobson said he and others have been praying for "God's intervention"; that "God's perfect will will be done in November the fourth." I.e., they think God has the ability to sway the election in favor of McCain-Palin, and they are asking God to do so. (The mechanism by which God would supposedly do this is unclear; apparently he would "touch people's hearts" or some such -- possess them -- in the voting booths.)

Palin replied:

Well, it is that intercession that is so needed and so greatly appreciated. And I can feel it too, Dr. Dobson. I can feel the power or prayer and that strength is provided through our prayer warriors across this nation and I so appreciate it. [Dobson says, " Well, you hear that everywhere you do, don't you?] I do, and that is what allows us to continue to be inspired and strengthened. And it's just a great reminder also when we hear along the rope lines that people are interceding for us and praying for us; it's our reminder to do the same, to put this all in God's hands, to seek his perfect will for this nation and to, of course, seek his wisdom and guidance in putting this nation back on the right track.

If McCain is elected, Palin will be a heartbeat away from the most powerful political office in the world. If she becomes president, she will think that God placed her in that position and that her duty is to impose God's "perfect will" on the nation.

Meanwhile, as Myrhaf reviews, Rush Limbaugh has called on those who reject faith-based politics to leave the Republican Party. Read the transcript.

There can be no doubt -- because leading Republicans have gone out of their way to remind us -- that the Republican Party is the party of the religious right. Palin's comments have prompted me to again think seriously about voting for Obama (rather than nobody).

If Palin does become president, several things might mitigate her damage. She would (probably) face a Democratic Congress, which would (probably) block the worst possible Supreme Court nominees. She is inept, so she might flub the job so badly that she'd be enormously unpopular. And, regardless of her performance, the American people might revolt against her overt and overriding faith-based politics. I don't think I need to outline the worst-case scenario.

Beauprez Reminds Voters of Schaffer's Faith-Based Politics

Bob Beauprez, former congressman and failed candidate for governor, has reminded voters that U.S. Senate Candidate Bob Schaffer opposes abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. Yet Beauprez's own faith-based politics cost him big in 2006, when he earned only 40 percent of the votes. While Beauprez made a number of campaign mistakes, his own commitment to faith-based politics, as well as an even more pronounced commitment by his running mate, alienated many moderate Republicans and independents. Will Beauprez bring the same magic touch to Schaffer's race?

Mike Riley reviews Beauprez's efforts for the Denver Post:

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez is blanketing the state with recorded calls that take aim at Democratic Senate candidate Mark Udall... The calls are targeted at Catholic voters...

Voters who receive the robo-calls hear Beauprez's voice talking about the "five non-negotiables" of Catholic doctrine — opposition to abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, embryonic stem-cell research and human cloning.

He tells listeners that Udall is on the wrong side of each, and he lauds Udall's opponent, Republican Bob Schaffer.

It's not clear that the calls will help Schaffer even among Catholics. One recent poll found that 51 percent of Catholics believe "Abortion should be legal and solely up to the woman to decide." More broadly, Beauprez reminds voters that the Republican Party in Colorado is all about imposing sectarian dogma by law.

What's repulsive is that Beauprez calls his faith-based policies "values issues." What is valuable is a government that respects individual rights. One that violates individual rights by enforcing religious law destroys values.

Burton Backtracks on Amendment 48

As I've pointed out, Kristi Burton likes to pretend that Amendment 48 wouldn't have the nasty legal implications that her opponents claim.

But on October 14, Burton even backed away from her opposition to abortion, telling a crowd, "We're not saying outlaw abortion, do this, do that. It's simply a definition."

Apparently, Burton believes that Amendment 48 has a shot only if she lies about her intentions. The advocates of the measure most certainly are "saying outlaw abortion." Burton herself has said elsewhere that she sees Amendment 48 as an opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade.

What should we make of Burton's claim that Amendment 48 is "simply a definition?" As I wrote in an e-mail in reply to that question, "Amendment 48 would amend the Colorado constitution. Constitutional provisions are laws; they are laws of higher order than legislative statutes. If a statute contradicts a constitutional provision, courts will look to the constitution as the higher law. Many laws contain definitions, and the definitions are critical for how the law is interpreted and applied. So it's a mistake to think of Amendment 48 as merely a definition; it would add a definition to the state's constitution, thereby becoming part of the fundamental law that guides the passage and application of legislative statutes."

Of course, as Diana Hsieh and I point out in our paper, whether and to what extent Amendment 48 is implemented depends on federal as well as state court rulings. As Ed Quillen points out, neither the legislature nor the courts always follow existing constitutional language. However, in our paper Diana and I explain why that's hardly comforting:

The legislature and courts in Colorado might be strongly tempted to pretend that Amendment 48 doesn't mean what it plainly says in order to avoid its absurd implications. Such a course of legislative and judicial winking might save Colorado from the worst effects of the measure, but it would do so by undermining the basic principle of rule of law so essential to a free society.

Alternately, the Colorado legislature could try to rewrite the myriad statutes mentioning "person" or "persons" to exclude fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses. However, anti-abortion lawyers could effectively challenge such legislative changes based on the constitutional language of Amendment 48. The measure would be subject to interpretation by Colorado courts, but those courts would be legally bound by the constitution, including Amendment 48.

If Amendment 48 passes, its exact effects would depend greatly on the decisions of future legislators and judges. However, we can be sure that the advocates of Amendment 48 will work doggedly to force the Colorado government to fully implement and enforce the measure.

As Burton demonstrates, "half the truth is a great lie." True, Amendment 48 would not automatically be enforced. However, the advocates of Amendment 48 have put it forward precisely because they want to outlaw abortion and in every other way legally protect a fertilized egg. For Burton to pretend otherwise proves only that she knows she cannot win an honest debate.

Amendment 48: Burton's Equivocation

At least Kristi Burton and I agree on something: the tag line of "it simply goes to far" is a terrible critique of Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution. Beyond that, Burton simply refuses to honestly discuss the implications of Amendment 48 or to answer her serious critics.

Burton writes for the October 18 Vail Daily:

It has been interesting to watch the strategy of the "no on 48" campaign. They know if they attempt to contend human life doesn’t begin at conception they’re arguing with virtually every geneticist and embryology textbook available. So instead, they take issue with the dictionary. They concede that human life begins at conception, but claim "personhood" doesn’t begin until some later, yet to be determined, date. They never come out and say it, but they assume it's OK to "terminate" a developing human until he or she reaches that undefined point of "personhood." If they simply pick up any dictionary and look up "person," they will find the definition: "A human being." That’s what it's meant for the last several centuries. "Person" and "human being" have always been the same thing, but the no on 48 folks plan to change all that. And, they do it as though no one should even question their totally illogical and false premise. They simply assume it's true and expect you to do the same.

But Diana Hsieh and I have directly addressed Burton's arguments. Burton cannot have failed to become aware of our paper, as Diana and I have promoted it widely in newspaper columns, letters, online comments to news articles, and the internet. For Burton to completely ignore our arguments reveals her intellectual dishonesty.

Notice Burton's progression: she claims that a fertilized egg is "human life," then she jumps to "person," which she equates with "human being." Burton's argument is incredibly rationalistic, so silly on its face that it obviously disguises her real motive for supporting the measure: she believes the Bible forbids abortion and that God has declared a fertilized egg to be a person, with all the same legal rights as you and me.

Obviously a fertilized egg is "human life." It is alive, and it contains human DNA. Every cell in our bodies is "human life" for the same reason. Burton is quite wrong in claiming that "human life" begins at conception; both the sperm cell and unfertilized egg are also human and alive. What Burton steadfastly refuses to consider are the very real biological differences between a fertilized egg and a born baby. Diana and I discuss these differences at length, and in the process we clearly define the beginning of personhood.

For the answer to Burton's claims, see pages 10-13 of our paper. First Diana and I point out Burton's equivocation:

[T]he advocates of Amendment 48 depend on an equivocation on "human being" to make their case. A fertilized egg is human, in the sense that it contains human DNA. It is also a "being," in the sense that it is an entity. That's also true of a gallbladder: it is human and it is an entity. Yet that doesn't make your gallbladder a human person with the right to life. Similarly, the fact that an embryo is biologically a human entity is not grounds for claiming that it's a human person with a right to life. Calling a fertilized egg a "human being" is word-play intended to obscure the vast biological differences between a fertilized egg traveling down a woman's fallopian tube and a born infant sleeping in a crib. It is intended to obscure the fact that anti-abortion crusaders base their views on scripture and authority, not science.

Here is the most relevant passage on personhood (sans citations):

[S]o long as the fetus remains within the woman, it is wholly dependent on her for its basic life-functions. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as she lives, as an extension of her body. It is wholly contained within and dependent on her for its survival. So if the woman dies, the fetus will die too unless delivered quickly. The same is true if the fetus's life-line to her body is disrupted, such as when the umbilical cord forms a tight knot. A fetus cannot act independently to sustain its life, not even on the basic biological level possible to a day-old infant. It is thoroughly dependent on the woman in which it lives.

That situation changes radically at birth. A baby lives his own life, outside his mother. Although still very needy, he maintains his own biological functions. He breathes his own air, digests his own food, and moves on his own. He interacts with other people as a whole and distinct creature in his own right, not merely as a part of a pregnant woman. He can leave his mother, either temporarily or permanently, to be cared for by someone else. He has a life of his own that must be protected as a matter of right, just the same as every other person. That's why the killing of a just-born infant is immoral -- and properly forbidden by law. However, while just a fetus within the woman, the only person with rights is the woman.

Recently Diana posted some comments by William Stoddard along the same lines:

Aside from the question of self-awareness, the other critical point is that the fetus does not meet a necessary condition for having individual rights: It is not an individual.

Individualism works, ethically, because we can draw a line of separation between individuals. It's possible to benefit one individual without doing so at the expense of another; individual rights provide a legal structure that makes such results not merely possible but reliable. We are not forced to trade off benefits to one individual against injuries to another. And what makes collectivism evil is that it does force such tradeoffs on us.

But if ever there was a case of collectivism in human existence, it's in the relationship between a pregnant woman and her unborn child. The fetus cannot be neutral with respect to the woman carrying it; its very existence alters her hormones, her entire physiology, and her emotional state. Even if the woman wants to be pregnant, it's all too possible, despite the achievements of medicine, for situations to arise where a benefit to the fetus entails harm to the mother, or vice versa, and where it's necessary to decide which benefit is more important. Trying to sort this out by applying the concept of individual rights just doesn't work.

And there's only one decision maker there: the pregnant woman. The fetus lacks sufficient rationality, purposefulness, and self-awareness to make choices. The pregnant woman has to decide where her priorities are. Some pregnant women will choose to take terrifying risks for the chance to have a child, and that's their right; they can say "Price no object" if they want. Others will abort, for whatever reason. Either way, they pay the price of their choices. Having someone else, who doesn't have to pay that price, make the decision for them, or tell them what they can and can't do, cannot be expected to produce better decisions.

Burton wishes us to forget the actual language of Amendment 48. It does not merely say, "We think a fertilized egg is human life" or even a person. Rather, it grants a fertilized egg the same rights to life, liberty, property, and due process of law that born babies have. Thus, it would have radical implications for the law. Burton pretends that the measure does not mean what it says. In her Vail Daily piece, she writes:

The rest of the arguments of the no on 48 campaign are designed to convince you the amendment will interfere with women's health care and cause women who have miscarriages to be carted off to jail. These scare tactics aren't true. Dottie Lamm and Linda Campbell go on at length about the possible affects of the amendment. They keep using the term, "it could" do this or that in their attempt to frighten voters.

The amendment merely extends protection to both mother and baby. It recognizes that women also are persons. I’m a woman and will probably marry and have children someday. Would I help create a law intended to unduly endanger myself?

Here we move on from Burton's Equivocation to Burton's Bifurcation. As I've pointed out at length, Burton simultaneously wants to claim that Amendment 48 would lay the basis for banning abortion, but that it would not lead to other nasty implications. Yet, if a fertilized egg is a person, with all the same legal rights as a born infant, and if such a definition is legally enforced, then the logical implications are these: all abortion must be banned, even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks that are not immediately life-threatening to the woman; all forms of birth control that may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus must be banned; all fertility treatments that may result in the destruction of fertilized eggs must be banned; and all abortions and intentional miscarriages must be criminally prosecuted. Burton keeps repeating that these implications are "scare tactics" that "aren't true." Yet they are logical implications of Amendment 48, and Burton has never offered a single argument otherwise.

Burton does let slip a concession, however: notice that Amendment 48 would not "unduly endanger" her life. What does that mean? It means that, if doctors believe that failure to abort necessarily would kill the woman, and they don't fear criminal prosecution if they abort, then Amendment 48 likely would permit the abortion. However, as I've pointed out, rarely are risks so clear cut. Amendment 48 would endanger the health and lives of some women; whether that endangerment is "undue" would depend on how the legislature and courts decided the criminality of abortion. There can be no doubt that, in some cases, Amendment 48 would result in the deaths of women.

While Amendment 48 certainly is no laughing matter, I did get a chuckle over Burton's projection:

Resorting to repetitive use of a meaningless phrase is a propaganda tactic commonly employed when there is no substance to an argument. Opponents of 48 are hoping for what psychologists call a "conditioned response." You step into the voting booth and when you see Amendment 48 that little phrase automatically jumps into your head and you vote no.

Changing "opponents" to "advocates" and "no" to "yes," that pretty much summarizes Burton's case for Amendment 48.

Does God Want Higher Taxes?

The Denver Post reports:

Rabbi Joel Schwartzman of Congregation B'nai Chaim in Morrison gathered with faith leaders from across the state in support of Amendment 59.

Called "Embracing the Common Good," the campaign has mobilized more than 2,500 Colorado congregations, including Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and Jews, to vote in favor of the amendment, which focuses on the creation of a savings account for public schools.

"If you're Jewish, you vote for this," Schwartzman said.

Oh, really? I suspect I could come up with a list of quite a few Jewish people who intend to vote against it, and who would take Schwartzman's condescending attitude with offense. His comment is rather like telling all blacks, whites, Hispanics, Catholics, Muslims, etc. that they will "vote for this," whatever "this" is.

While there is a Judeo-Christian impetus toward altruism, which often manifests as support for the welfare state, quite a few religious people don't approve of higher taxes and don't think God demands them. I wonder why Sally Ho, author of the report, didn't talk to some of those people.

But the broader point is that the alleged will of God, however that's interpreted by various groups, should have nothing to do with politics.

At least House Speaker Andrew Romanoff offered a nonsectarian argument for the net tax hike: "We believe budgets are moral documents which must embody the common good and reflect our shared responsibility to each other." Romanoff's view is not tied to any religion (though it is indirectly inspired by Judeo-Christian altruism); it is a bald assertion of leftist collectivism. I do agree that we have a "responsibility to each other:" we have a responsibility to respect each other's rights. Romanoff believes that the majority has the "responsibility" to seize by force the wealth of the minority and redistribute it to others. But legalized theft hardly makes society as a whole better off.

As for me and my house, we advocate individual rights.

Obama Called Antichrist by Denver Cop

Doesn't Barack Obama have enough flaws without making up bizarre fictions about him? The AP reports that a Denver police officer sent out an e-mail claiming that a presidential candidate -- guess who -- may be a harbinger of the End of Days. The e-mail stated that the "Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40's, of Muslim descent."

Here is a comparable message collected by Snopes:

According to the Book of Revelations the anti-christ is: The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuassive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal.... the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destory everything. Is it OBAMA??

Inquiring minds want to know.

Beyond the fact that Revelation says no such thing about any antichrist, Snopes points out that "since the book of Revelation was complete by the end of the second century, but the religion of Islam wasn't founded until about four hundred years later, the notion that Revelation would have mentioned a 'Muslim' at all is rather far-fetched."

But people can read into these works basically whatever they want.

Obama's political problem is not that he is opposed to Christ, but that he seeks weaken the wall between church and state through faith-based welfare and "brotherly love" (meaning federal controls). Obama doesn't need to be the antichrist to royally screw up the U.S. economy, as I fear he'll do.

We need to worry about the real Christians and their political controls (in addition to the left's political controls), not some fantasy antichrist.

AP Details Palin's Tax-Funded Church Tours

I actually meant to place this post here, but now that it's been up I'll leave it. The upshot is that Sarah Palin used tax funds as governor to attend religious events and used her political offices to work against abortion rights and support faith-based welfare. Read the article from the Associated Press for more.

Amendment 48: Letters and Replies

Today the Rocky Mountain News features a couple of online letters regarding Amendment 48, along with replies.

Dan Kushmaul writes:

A fertilized egg is not an individual. It has the potential to be a person, or two people, or many. If we declare a fertilized egg a person, does that mean identical twins are legally one individual? If a fertilized egg is a person or persons, then any contraception or procedure that prevents implantation, or perhaps even fertilization, will constitute depriving a person of life - murder. Do we really want to criminalize IUDs, condoms, and the pill, and force in vitro fertilization clinics to implant every egg they fertilize?

Kushmaul's comments point to some of the absurdities of the measure. They do not, however, get to the root of why a fertilized egg is not a person; for that, please read the paper by Diana Hsieh and me. A fertilized egg is not an "individual" person -- it is not a person at all -- but it is an individual fertilized egg, regardless of how many people it might become. The problem is that the advocates of the measure routinely equivocate on terms like "human being," "individual," etc., reading into those terms personhood where none actually exists.

Somebody called "LetsThink" posts a reply to which I responded:

"LetsThink" asks, "Can you tell us with absolutely no question, when Life begins???"

That question is irrelevant. Amendment 48 does not define when "life" begins; it (arbitrarily) defines when personhood begins. Life does not begin at conception; life precedes conception. Both the sperm cell and pre-fertilized egg are alive. Life is a never-ending chain that goes back to the first living things. So the only sensible answer to the question is "around four billion years ago."

"LetsThink" denies that "the baby is part of the mother." But that statement is ambiguous. The fertilized egg is not an element of the woman's own bodily functions, as a kidney is. The fertilized egg contains a unique set of human DNA. So, no, a fertilized egg is not like a kidney in that way. But a fertilized egg (through the fetal stage) is entirely contained within and completely dependent upon the woman's body, and that fact is central to the issue of personhoon. Biological distinction, in the sense of existing independently, physically apart from another person, is a necessary condition for personhood.

"LetsThink" declares, without offering a single example and with loaded language, "It's time for Abortionists to stop lying." No, it's time for "LetsThink" to start telling the truth.

For a complete discussion of the horrific consequences of Amendment 48, and a more detailed explanation of why a fertilized egg is not a person, please see the paper by Diana Hsieh and me titled, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life:"
http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf

L. Fortier points out that a common alternative to legal abortion are "back-alley abortions." As Diana and I point out, that argument becomes relevant only once it is established that a fertilized egg is not a person. Parker is correct in writing, "Amendment 48 also includes birth control pills and could lead to prosecution of parents and doctors after in vitro procedures wherein extra fertilized eggs are disposed of. This is a dangerous door to open."

"LetsThink" posts another reply, to which I responded:

"LetsThink" claims, "There is no defense for abortion." Yet implicit within "LetsThink's" other statements is the beginning of just such a defense. While "LetsThink" arbitrarily conflates a fertilized egg with a born "baby" -- despite the obvious and radical differences between the two -- "LetsThink" also points out that a fertilized egg is merely a "potential" person, not an actual one. A fertilized egg into its early development doesn't even have any organs. More importantly, it is completely contained within and biologically dependent upon the woman's body.

But "LetsThink's" post does serve an important function: it reminds us that Amendment 48 is about religious faith. It is an attempt to enforce religious dogma through force of law. Notably, existing Colorado statutes define first-degree murder as intentionally killing a "person" -- a crime subject to life in prison or the death penalty.

Diana Hsieh and I summarize and detail in our paper, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life:"
http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf

Perhaps someday an advocate of Amendment 48 will actually attempt to reply to the arguments of that paper. But I doubt it.

Amendment 48 Sponsor Hedges on Implications

A recent debate about Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution, pit the obfuscater against the appeaser, as a story by David Montero of the Rocky Mountain News makes clear. We begin with Kristi Burton, the measure's sponsor:

She criticized those who argue that her amendment would create a legal morass because the word "person" appears in more than 20,000 state statutes.

"A definition doesn't have that power," she said. "A definition lays down the foundation . . . but it doesn't guarantee any particular result."

Yet Burton has made clear that her intention with Amendment 48 is to ban abortion except to save the life of the woman. So clearly she does think that a mere definition -- in reality a fundamental change in the state constitution -- can "have that power," contingent on federal changes.

If Amendment 48 can ban abortion based on the legal fiction that a fertilized egg is a person, then it can also do all the other things that Diana Hsieh and I outline in our paper, Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life." It can ban the birth control pill and other forms of birth control that can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. It can ban fertility treatments that often involve the destruction or freezing of fertilized eggs. It can ban medical research involving fertilized eggs. And it can subject women and their doctors to criminal prosecution for obtaining an abortion or intentionally causing a miscarriage. These are not merely hypothetical scare stories; they are logical implications. True, the amendment may not be consistently interpreted or enforced, and its implementation depends on federal changes, as Diana and I write in the paper, but if the measure is implemented those other consequences naturally follow.

Against Burton, Pat Steadman said, "I think it's hard to imagine there not being unintended consequences." That response is pathetic. First, the consequence that even Burton openly advocates -- a near-complete ban on abortion -- is horrific. It would massively violate the rights of women of reproductive age, along with their partners and doctors, and it would lead to police-state controls. It would force women to bring to term pregnancies even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks -- that is, when the health risks did not cause the woman to die first.

Second, the other consequences that Diana and I outline are fully intended and openly stated by the honest advocates of Amendment 48. Various members of the religious right openly call for bans on the pill, bans on select medical research, and severe criminal penalties -- including the death penalty -- for women who get abortions. It is true that Amendment 48 would have many other consequences that are unintended, but it is evil precisely because of what its backers intend.

Burton also continued her unsubstantiated assertions that a fertilized egg is a person. Montero begins, "Science now knows that life begins at the moment of conception, the initiator of the Personhood Amendment told an audience of 30 at the University of Denver Thursday night." Yet life does not begin at conception; it precedes conception.

Burton claimed "that medical science tells us that when an egg is fertilized at conception, a human being has been created." Yet as Diana and I write in the paper, Burton relies on an equivocation on the term "human being" to fudge her case. A fertilized egg is human, in the sense that it contains human DNA, and it is a potential person, but it is not an actual person. But Burton is not interested in promoting honest debate or answering her critics. Hers is an agenda of religious faith, and the facts be damned.

Amendment 48: Ritter's Faith-Based Strategy Backfires

Bill Ritter came out against Amendment 48 on October 7. But the way he did it actually helps the advocates of the measure.

As Tim Hoover reports for The Denver Post, Ritter said at a rally at the capitol, "I believe the amendment goes too far." In this line Ritter follows the slogan of the main campaign against the measure, a position that implies some restrictions on abortion, birth control, and fertility treatments would be fine. That line makes those opponents of Amendment 48 look like cowardly hypocrites. That's why Diana Hsieh and I don't repeat that line and criticize its use in our paper.

But Ritter's main problem is that he tried to oppose a faith-based measure while appealing to faith. As Hoover reports, Ritter said, "In spite of the fact that I'm pro-life, I can look at this and really find reasons I think it is just such an extreme position to take... My understanding is that there are things about calling a fertilized egg a person that do not square with church doctrine."

With this statement, Ritter granted that church doctrine should guide the law. What Ritter should have said is that as governor he has a responsibility to protect the separation of church and state, and Amendment 48 clearly seeks to impose religious dogma by force of law.

Predictably, Hoover's follow-up article for today carries the headline, "Bishops chide Ritter on view of personhood." Hoover reports:

The archbishop of Denver on Wednesday publicly scolded Gov. Bill Ritter... for comments he made about whether a fertilized egg is a person.

In a statement given to news outlets, Archbishop Charles Chaput, along with Auxiliary Bishop James Conley, said Ritter's comments on Amendment 48 "seriously confused" the issue. ...

Ritter's comments about the church's stance on a fertilized egg are false, the bishops said.

"Catholic teaching holds that human life is sacred from the moment of fertilization, commonly called 'conception,' to the moment of natural death," the bishops wrote in the statement. "Separating a 'fertilized egg' from the dignity of human personhood is bad theology and bad public policy.

"And Catholic public officials should know better."

Catholic bishops should know better than to push around Colorado's elected officials, who are charged with enacting and executing nonsectarian laws, not imposing Catholic doctrine on the state. But Ritter invited the rebuke by resting the matter on religious faith.

At least Bishops Chaput and Conley have reinforced what was already obvious: Amendment 48 is about religious faith, nothing else. The Catholic church regards a fertilized egg as "sacred," and that is the end of the argument.

Meanwhile, Kristi Burton, sponsor of the measure, continues her inane defense of it. Hoover reports in his first article:

"The governor's position directly contradicts the overwhelming modern scientific evidence that now recognizes what we all know in our hearts," said Kristi Burton, who sponsored Amendment 48, "from the moment of conception, a new unique individual has been created."

Notice that Burton often throws around claims about "modern scientific evidence," on the pretense that the measure somehow reaches beyond religious faith. Yet there is no substance whatsoever to her claims about "science," as Diana and I explain (see pages 11-13 of the paper). To briefly summarize, a "unique individual" fertilized egg is still not a person, as (besides the fact that it is only a microscopic clump of cells) it is wholly contained within and dependent upon the woman's body.

At least Burton distinguishes between her cart and her horse. Science, allegedly, merely "recognizes what we all know in our hearts" -- that is, what her religious faith has already asserted.

As if we needed any more lessons regarding the dangers of pandering to faith-based politics, two letters in the Rocky Mountain News also point to the problem. On September 22, I wrote, "Then Mayo McNeil quotes Genesis and Exodus to 'refute' the view that a fertilized egg is a person. Put this in the hefty folder titled, 'With Friends Like These...'"

Sure enough, on October 8 Mary Lou Fenton replied:

Read further in your Bible and you will find Psalms 139:13-16:

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. . . .

"All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

This is a very clear pronouncement of a divine creator who gives us life and knows us intimately. An incredible truth that invests each life with meaning, value and purpose.

There can be no doubt: Amendment 48 is a prime example of faith-based politics, the attempt to impose religious dogma by force of law and to criminally prosecute those who violate that dogma.

McNeil made essentially the same mistake that Ritter made. Rather than try to undermine Amendment 48 with his own assertions of religious faith, the governor of Colorado should boldly declare his support for the separation of church and state.

Rocky Recycles Burton's Evasions on Amendment 48

On September 19, the Pagosa Daily Post published an op-ed by Kristi Burton that was filled with distortions and evasions. I replied. Then, on September 25, The Denver Post published the same op-ed. That didn't surprise me, because nobody can actually sustain an argument in favor of Amendment 48. But it did surprise me that the Rocky Mountain News published virtually the same op-ed yesterday; usually the papers try not to publish the same pieces.

My previous reply answers Burton's main points. However, given the widespread distribution of her piece, I thought I'd extend my reply here.

Burton writes: "Let me make it clear: Amendment 48 is about empowering you, the voter."

Note that that's her leading argument. And it's completely meaningless. Every ballot measure "is about empowering you, the voter," to decide the measure. But in a deeper sense, it is not about "empowering" the voter, for there is no such thing. Rather, it is about empowering those with the faith-based view that a fertilized egg is a person to impose their police state on the rest of us.

To reiterate, Amendment 48 would ban all abortions except perhaps to save the woman's life. It would force women to carry their pregnancies to term even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks (and obviously in cases in which the woman decides she is unprepared to bear a child). It would necessitate criminal penalties -- perhaps including the death penalty if current statutes remain in force -- for abortion. It would ban practically all fertility treatments. It would ban the birth-control pill, IUD, and other forms of birth control. For details, see "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" by Diana Hsieh and me.

Burton writes, "It's about allowing the democratic process to make decisions that have been made by special-interest groups for the last 40 years while using your taxes for their own gain."

This is ridiculous. These "decisions" have been made individually by millions of women and their partners, the Supreme Court, and various politicians and activists. True, some tax dollars have gone to Planned Parenthood, which I oppose (because I oppose the transfer of tax dollars for any health-related expense). But obviously that issue is separable from the matter of abortion. (This should serve as a warning to the left, however: if you keep begging for tax funds, you keep giving the religious right more opportunities to control the funded organizations.)

Burton claims she wants to ensure "our laws are built on honest premises." That's a laugh; she lies in the same op-ed by claiming the "Personhood Amendment doesn't change the constitution in any way." That line remains inexcusable (and I'm frankly amazed that the state's major newspapers have let her get away with the obvious distortion). Amendment 48 is a constitutional amendment.

Burton writes:

The words we choose matter. Mendez continually referred to newly formed persons as "fertilized eggs." This is a familiar strategy. In the same way, there's a reason why abortion proponents use the term "pro-choice." It shifts the debate away from the ugly reality of abortion. The repeated use of the term "fertilized egg" robs the developing human of personhood, just as the word "fetus" dehumanizes a developing baby.

There's a reason why opponents of Amendment 48 use the term "fertilized egg." The reason is that Amendment 48 itself uses that language. Amendment 48 would add the following new section to the state's constitution: "As used in Sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization."

At least Burton grants that she wants to outlaw "abortion" of a fertilized egg even before it implants in the uterus, the usual marker of pregnancy.

Burton commits the same fallacy of which she accuses her opponents. She calls a fertilized egg a "person," as if that arbitrary definition alone can carry the debate. The difference is that she has never offered a single, coherent argument as to why a fertilized egg is a person.

By contrast, Diana Hsieh and I offer a detailed argument as to why it's not. So it's correct to refer to a "fertilized egg" as a "fertilized egg," but it is wrong to refer to it as a "person," as Burton does.

But Burton doesn't have any actual arguments to back up her position, she just has faith. She can't even be bothered to discuss most of the measure's implications.

Some weeks ago, I suggested to a friend a set of questions that I wish Burton would answer. Perhaps in a future op-ed, she'll address these points. I'll not hold my breath. Here are the questions:

1. Do you believe that the birth-control pill or IUD may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus?

2. Do you believe that the birth-control pill, IUD, or any other form of birth control should be banned?

3. At what risk to the woman's life, if any, do you believe an abortion should be legal, and who should be the final authority in deciding such matters? (Note: Burton has granted that she would allow abortion if otherwise the mother certainly would die, but she still needs to address the real issue of what to do about weighing uncertain risks and health problems that are not immediately life-threatening.)

4. Do you believe that in vitro fertilization that may result in destroyed or frozen embryos should be banned?

5. What criminal penalty do you believe is appropriate for women who get abortions? What about their doctors?

6. Do you believe that women should be forced to carry to term fetuses known to suffer Down Syndrome or other serious health problems?

7. Do you believe that abortion should be completely banned in cases of rape and incest?

8. Do you believe that all stem-cell medical research should be banned?

9. Why do you believe that a fertilized egg is a person (as opposed to "life" or something that contains human DNA)?

Hsieh Deciphers Amendment 48 Polls

Diana Hsieh issued the following media release today. I'll have some comments of my own about the recent polls in the near future.

MEDIA RELEASE: COALITION FOR SECULAR GOVERNMENT

Nearly 40% of Colorado Voters Seek to Destroy Reproductive Rights

Sedalia, Colorado / October 7, 2008

Contact: Diana Hsieh, co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" and founder of the Coalition for Secular Government [omitted]

A poll of likely voters shows strong support for Amendment 48, the ballot measure that would grant the full legal rights of persons to fertilized eggs. The survey, conducted on September 28th by Rasmussen Reports with 500 likely voters, shows that 39% plan to vote for the measure, 50% to vote against it, while 11% are unsure. (See http://tinyurl.com/4huary.)

Such strong support for Amendment 48 should surprise anyone familiar with the barrage of criticism published in Colorado media in recent weeks. Critics of the measure have warned voters of its destructive effects on Colorado's laws if passed and enforced. They have shown that it would usher in a near-total ban on abortion, outlaw the birth control pill and in vitro fertilization, and subject pregnant women to police controls. Yet these latest poll results are basically unchanged from a June poll, also by Rasmussen. (See http://tinyurl.com/4mm59r.)

Diana Hsieh, founder of the Coalition for Secular Government and co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," argues that the broad support for Amendment 48 is driven by a deeply-held faith pretending to be "pro-life."

The most recent Rasmussen poll showed that 41% of Colorado voters believe that "life begins at conception." That number explains the strong support for Amendment 48, despite the media barrage against it. "People who endorse that slogan regard a fertilized egg as a new, whole person with a right to life," Hsieh said. "They regard the enormous sacrifices forced on real men and women by the measure as insignificant -- or even ennobling. Their vote is based on faith, without regard to the real-world requirements of human life and happiness. It's not 'pro-life' at all."

"To effectively combat measures like Amendment 48, the whole 'pro-life' ideology must be challenged at its root," Hsieh said. "A mushy slogan like 'it simply goes too far' is unconvincing, even misleading. It doesn't speak to the fundamental dispute. Worse, it suggests that some compromise -- like banning most abortions -- would be acceptable."

"Instead, reproductive rights must be defended on principle, based on the objective facts of human nature. With regard to abortion, the fact is that a fetus or embryo is only a potential person so long as encased within and dependent on the woman. Once born, the infant is a new individual person with the right to life. That view ought to be the basis for the laws of a
free society. Any alternative -- any attempt to grant rights to the embryo or fetus -- would violate the rights of pregnant women."

For a principled defense of reproductive rights, see the Coalition for Secular Government's issue paper, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person," available at http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf, particularly the section "Personhood and the Right to Abortion," pages 10-13.

State Senator Greg Brophy Endorses Amendment 48

In a recent e-mail, State Senator Greg Brophy writes:

Amendment 48 Yes – Ignore all the hype over this one, it is really a straightforward question. Should all abortions except those where the life of the mother is threatened be banned in Colorado? That is what A48 really does and it is purposefully written to challenge Roe v. Wade. It doesn’t ban contraception, it does ban RU 486, and it would raise a due process question in those rare pregnancies where the life of the mother is at stake. In those cases, the unborn baby would be represented in a court action as well as the mother.

At least Brophy is forthright about some of the implications regarding the measure. As Diana Hsieh and I write in "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," the measure is indeed intended to overturn Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion in Colorado -- even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks. Brophy also admits that the life of the egg/embryo/fetus would be weighed against the life of the mother. Legal action could prevent or delay an abortion from proceeding in cases of health risks -- causing the deaths of some women. Doctors who performed an abortion over health concerns also could face "court action" -- i.e., criminal prosecution -- preventing treatment in some cases and causing the deaths of some women.

While Brophy doesn't come right out and say it, he believes some women should die in order to legally protect fertilized eggs as "persons."

Laughably, on his web page Brophy claims to endorse "Limited government" and "Personal responsibility." Exactly how is subjecting women and their doctors to "court action" for health-related (or any) abortions -- thereby using government force to kill some women -- an instance of "limited government?" Brophy, along with many other Colorado Republicans, have proven that they are mortal enemies of individual rights.

I sent Brophy the following question via e-mail:

In a recent e-mail, you state that Amendment 48 "doesn’t ban contraception." However, a popular birth-control pill says right in its prescription literature that it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Do you believe that the pill or IUD can do that? If so, do you advocate a ban on those forms of birth control? (Yes, I intend to publicize your answer.)

I referred him to pages 3-5 of the paper.

When Brophy encourages voters to "Ignore all the hype," he is asking them to ignore some of the real legal implications of Amendment 48 and impose religious dogma through force of law.

Burton Continues to Dodge Amendment 48 Implications

Kristi Burton has been tight-lipped about the legal implications of Amendment 48. She's admitted she wants to ban "abortion on demand," but she hasn't discussed related issues, such as criminal penalties, birth control, and fertilization treatments.

At least she has offered one more minor detail about her take on the measure:

"Doctors should be able to decide which life they can save," she said. "If she were to die, the baby would die, too. It should be up to the mother and family and the doctor to save the life that can be saved instead of letting both die."

But that statement is hardly revealing. Burton again dodges the real questions.

Obviously, if the pregnant woman and the egg/embryo/fetus certainly would die without treatment, saving one "person" is better than losing two. But medical choices rarely involve such clear-cut risks.

Notably, Burton outright admits that it might be possible to save the fetus and kill the woman. Is that not the meaning of the statement, "Doctors should be able to decide which life they can save"? If a fertilized egg is arbitrarily declared a person, legally its life must be weighed against the life of the pregnant woman.

According to some opponents of abortion, not even an ectopic pregnancy necessarily threatens the very life of the mother. See page 10 of the paper by Diana Hsieh and me. In other cases, such as cancer treatment, the mother wouldn't necessarily die prior to child birth, so her ability to get treatment would depend also on its impact on the egg/embryo/fetus.

The upshot is that doctors would be legally bound -- subject to criminal prosecution -- to weigh the life of the fertilized egg against the life of the woman, in all cases in which death of the woman were not a certainty. Because such decisions would be second-guessed by prosecutors and the courts, doctors often would err on the side of inaction. The inevitable result would be more deaths of women. As Diana and I summarize, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life."

Kristi Burton's Gospel of Jesus Christ

Kristi Burton sometimes tries to pretend that Amendment 48, defining a fertilized egg as a person, is about science. But such arguments are laughable. Elsewhere she reveals her real agenda: to impose her religious dogma by force of law.

Westword reveals a bit more about Burton's background:

At seventeen, Burton began taking classes through Oak Brook College of Law and Government, an online law school whose mission is "to train individuals who desire to advance the gospel of Jesus Christ through service as advocates of truth, counselors of reconciliation, and ministers of justice in the fields of law and government policy." (Oak Brook students are also encouraged to "rely upon the indwelling Holy Spirit to give them the power to develop within them Christ-like character qualities.")

Assuming Burton takes Oak Brook's advice to heart, she believes she is inhabited by a ghost that tells her to ban abortion. These "ministers of justice" threaten to unleash profoundly unjust laws.