Don't Ban Or Force Abortion

Today's Boulder Weekly published my new article, "Don't ban or force abortions."

It begins:

The debate over abortion seems more contentious than ever in America today. Some want to ban all abortions from the moment of conception. Others want to forcibly sterilize people and compel women to get abortions.

But are those two groups really that different? They share fundamentally similar goals. Both would sacrifice the individual to some alleged greater good. Both would use the force of government to squash the rights of individuals. The moral alternative is to consistently uphold the rights of individuals to determine the course of their own lives.

Comments by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and by President Obama's "science czar," John Holdren, have raised concerns about politically promoted or required abortions. ...

Following are links to three articles I consulted.

"The ghoulish spirit of Margaret Sanger lives," by Michelle Malkin

"The Place of Women on the Court," by Emily Bazelon (New York Times)

"Science fiction czar," by David Harsanyi (Denver Post)

'Personhood' Returns for 2010

Last year, the religious right ran Amendment 48 in Colorado to define a fertilized egg as a person, with full legal rights on par with born infants. The "personhood" measure would have paved the way to banning abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, health risks, and fetal deformity, perhaps excepting extreme risk to the woman's life. If enforced, it would have led to bans on certain forms of birth control and severe restrictions on fertility treatments. It would have prompted criminal prosecution of abortions and criminal investigations of suspect miscarriages.

Voters crushed the measure 73 to 27 percent. So, after such a resounding defeat, the measure's backers learned their lesson, right? Of course not. They're back with a new -- and even worse -- proposal for 2010.

Mark Barna reports for the June 29 Gazette, "Two anti-abortion groups, Colorado Right to Life and Personhood USA, will submit a new 'personhood' initiative to the Colorado Legislative Council on Thursday in hopes of getting a measure on the 2010 state ballot." Gualberto Garcia Jones of Personhood Colorado promises a "smarter," better-funded campaign with better spokespersons.

But there will be an important change. Barna writes:

Rather than defining a person as "any human being from the moment of fertilization," the new initiative will establish personhood in "every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

"The change," Garcia [Jones] said, "doesn't leave any loopholes to artificial forms of reproduction such as cloning."

See also coverage in the Denver Daily News (in which we learn that Garcia Jones is Catholic -- big surprise there) and the Denver Post.

Tim Hoover of the Post doesn't mention the cloning issue. Instead, he writes:

"When we use 'fertilized egg,' it's a pejorative," said Keith Mason, director of Personhood USA, an Arvada-based organization supporting the measure and similar proposals across the country. ...

The amendment would say that "the term 'person' shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

So what is "the beginning of the biological development of that human being"? That would be up to courts to decide, said Gualberto Garcia Jones of Personhood Colorado.

How is calling a "fertilized egg" a "fertilized egg" a pejorative? Mason's claim is ridiculous. So I'll offer a different explanation. I think that the main reason supporters of the measure dumped the language about "fertilization" is that it draws to voters' attention all too clearly the goals of the organization: to ban all abortion and any other action that might harm a fertilized egg, on the faith-based fantasy that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul.

By substituting "human being" for "fertilized egg," supporters of the measure hope to cloud the issue in sufficient ambiguity to trip up more voters.

Of course, the ultimate goal of the measure's supporters -- as they loudly proclaim -- is to eventually elect the "right" politicians, who will appoint the "right" judges," who will interpret the measure so as to declare a fertilized egg a "human being," with all the legal ramifications that that entails.

Note the shift in Garcia Jones's tone from the Gazette article to the one in the Post. He told the Gazette that the purpose of the new language was to make it even more restrictive: to extend it beyond fertilization to cloning. But by the time he spoke with Hoover, he said the courts will decide. One might get the feeling that Garcia Jones rethought his strategy of informing voters that he intends the new measure to apply to all fertilized eggs.

So what are we to make of this new language about a "human being?" As Diana Hsieh and I wrote in our paper on Amendment 48:

In fact, the 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.

Of course, a fertilized egg, unlike a gallbladder, has the capacity, in the right environment, to develop into a born infant, a person. But a potential person is not an actual person, a distinction consistently dodged by advocates of abortion bans.

The problem with the new measure's language is that it relies on voters to decide for themselves what is a "human being." Is it a fertilized egg, a "viable" fetus, or a born infant? It's for the courts to decide, we are told. Then why do the measure's advocates leave the language intentionally ambiguous?

Obviously, if we take "human being" as synonymous with "person," then the measure is merely tautological. But clearly the goal of the measure's supporters is to define a fertilized egg -- and now a cloned zygote -- as a "person." The strategy is to make a rhetorical leap without bothering to show that a fertilized egg is, in fact, a person. Maybe that's because there is no argument demonstrating that a fertilized egg is a person, because it isn't.

Notably, not a single advocate of Amendment 48 even attempted to seriously address the arguments in the paper, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg is Not a Person." Thus, I do not need to recapitulate those arguments here, when readers can peruse the original for themselves.

For the advocates of abortion bans, this is not about proving that a fertilized egg is a person. This is about trying to obscure the issue and impose non-objective law in order to enforce the beliefs of sectarian faith.

Sotomayor On Abortion

I have made my opinion of Sonia Sotomayor clear: her race-based politics and judicial relativism pose serious threats to the legal system.

In the case of abortion, however, the enemies of my enemy remain my enemies. Sotomayor has come under fire for supporting the right to get an abortion, though I regard that as among the few points in her favor. (Radio host Jim Pfaff turned me on the the stories quoted here, though apparently we're on opposite sides of the issue.)

According to Paul Kengor writing for Catholic Exchange, Senator Jim DeMint said, "When I asked [Sotomayor] if an unborn child has any rights whatsoever, I was surprised that she said she had never thought about it... This is not just a question about abortion, but about respect due to human life at all stages." (Sotomayor's opinion here comes to us indirectly, via an obviously partisan senator.)

Part of DeMint's line (absent the context) made it into Charmaine Yoest's op-ed for the Washington Times. "Charmaine Yoest is president and chief executive officer of Americans United for Life (AUL)... [which] has been involved in every pro-life case before the Supreme Court since Roe v. Wade."

As background, last year I co-wrote a paper arguing that it is the anti-abortion stance that is, in fact, anti-life. Abortion bans would threaten the lives of some pregnant women, force some women to bear deformed fetuses against their will, force pregnancies even in cases of rape and incest, and interfere with birth control, scientific research, fertilization medicine, and a woman's right to control her own life and future. Personhood begins at birth, when a fetus leaves the mother's body and becomes a biologically separate and independent entity. Only religious faith can endorse the view that a fertilized egg is a person with the same rights as a newborn baby -- and religious faith conflicts with the requirements of objective law.

Significantly, Yoest bases her case, not on principles of objective law, but on popularity polls. The writes that "the overwhelming majority of Americans... support at least some restrictions on abortion." For example, "polls show" that "informed consent and parental notification" laws "are supported by at least 70 percent of the American public." I have not checked into the polling data -- though I suspect that the results depend very much on how the questions are worded (for instance, "informed consent" in this context means forcibly restricting a woman from getting an abortion for a period that politicians deem appropriate). The point is that Constitutional law is not properly determined by opinion polls.

Yoest writes that Sotomayor is guilty of "reading a 'fundamental right' to abortion into the Constitution." This is indeed ironic, given that the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention abortion, yet it does explicitly name the right to keep and bear arms. As Dave Kopel writes, Sotomayor has also found that "the right to arms is not a fundamental right." The fact that Sotomayor can find a fundamental right for something not named in the Bill of Rghts, but not for something explicitly named, indeed points to her prejudices.

Yet the entire doctrine of "fundamental" and non-fundamental rights is a judicial fiction completely at odds with the founding philosophy of the nation. Yoest is no less guilty than Sotomayor of ignoring the plain language of the Ninth Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Yoest refers to "common-sense restrictions on abortion" -- without explaining how the restrictions she favors comport with common sense (much less individual rights). Her language mirrors that of anti-gun activists who speak of "common-sense restrictions" on the right to bear arms. Yoest's clear intent is to undermine individual rights at the whim of mob rule.

Yoest does rightly raises two troubling issues. The matter of parental notification is not obvious. The argument against it is that parents have no right to force their pre-adult teens to take on a lifetime commitment to raising a child. The other troubling issue is "state and federal funding of abortion." Yoest is right to oppose it, as forcing people to fund abortions violates their rights. However, so long as the state funds medical procedures, to limit funding for one procedure to meet the demands of religious faith violates the separation of church and state. The only solution is to end state funding of medical procedures across the board. If Yoest favors that position, she does not state it in her op-ed.

Ultimately, Yoest falls into the same error as Sotomayor of subverting objective law to subjective experience. Whether the subjective experience is said to arise from the genes or from supernatural communion, the result is the same: the destruction of individual rights.

Musgrave's Anti-Abortion Hit Squad

Despite the fact that, at least in the Interior West, the Republican crusade against abortion has cost the party its political dominance, some Republicans are hell-bent on continuing that push.

As "Bob's Blog" from the Coloradoan points out:

[Former Congress Member] Musgrave was defeated soundly in 2008 by Democrat Betsy Markey. She was hired earlier this year by the Susan B. Anthony List, which focuses on supporting anti-abortion women running for office, to head a new project called "Votes Have Consequences." The new program plans to target a small number of incumbent House members in 2010 who are believed to be "out of step" with their districts on issues important to the pro-life movement.

In other words, the goal of the group is to oust social moderates in favor of hard religious-right candidates, who can then presumably follow in Musgrave's footsteps and lose in the general.

Musgrave recently wrote an article for the Weekly Standard with Marjorie Dannenfelser. Notably, while the two continue to call their position "pro-life," at no point do they confront the arguments that their anti-abortion position is in fact anti-life. Nor do they make any effort to defend the view that a fertilized egg is a person with the full rights of a newborn.

I will not rebut every claim made in the article, but I will address two points.

Musgrave and Dannenfelser write:

When it came to choosing the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, an obscure but important officer in charge of defining each administration's official stance with regard to the Constitution and federal law, the president nominated not simply a supporter of Roe but former NARAL counsel Dawn Johnsen. She believes that pregnancy is the moral equivalent of slavery, and that therefore the anti-slavery 13th Amendment to the Constitution protects abortion on demand. Johnsen made this argument in her best-known legal brief, to the Supreme Court in Webster v. Reproductive Services.

This claim by Musgrave and Dannenfelser is simply false. Johnsen did not equate pregnancy with slavery.

Fox offers the relevant context:

In a brief filed when she was a lawyer with the National Abortion Rights Action League, Johnsen cited a footnote that said forcing women to bear children was "disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the 13th Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest."

And Johnsen is correct. Forcing a woman -- and the key term here is "forcing" -- to bring a fertilized egg to term is "disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude."

It is unfortunate that Musgrave and Dannenfelser choose to distort Johnsen's views rather than present some sort of argument against them.

Musgrave and Dannenfelser are very concerned with allowing medical personnel to choose whether to perform or recommend abortions. (The writers are "pro-choice" when it suits them.) They think "pro-life leaders in Congress" should make sure that any political takeover of medicine ensures this medical right to choose.

But what should trump here is property rights and the right of contract. Hospitals and other medical facilities have the right to set their own terms, and doctors who work their can choose to uphold those terms or find employment elsewhere. A private Catholic hospital has every right to post on its front door: "We do not recommend or perform abortions." Then potential customers know the hospital's policies and can choose their health care accordingly.

Notice that what Musgrave and Dannenfelser do NOT endorse is liberty in medicine. The problem is that, to the degree politicians take over health care, politicians set the terms of health care. That is one of the reasons why politicians should not take over health care.

But the religious right does not truly care about establishing free markets (though a few religious conservatives endorse free markets or at least pay them lip service). This is not a surprise, because the entire purpose of the religious right is to use the force of politics to advance their faith-based agenda.

'Abortifacant' Birth Control

In our paper on Colorado's "personhood" initiative, Diana Hsieh and I pointed out that many common forms of birth control, including the pill and IUD, may act to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. The implication is that, if a fertilized egg were defined as a "person," with all the legal rights of a newborn, such birth control logically would have to be banned.

Now the Colorado Catholic Conference illustrates that our concerns were warranted. In a March 31 e-mail, the group warns:

Senate Bill 225 the Birth Control Protection Act concerning the definition of contraception. Senate Bill 225 defines contraceptive or contraception as a medically acceptable drug, device, or procedure used to prevent pregnancy.

This bill is dangerously broad and sweeping with the generic definition it provides for the terms “contraceptive” or “contraception.” This definition could have the effect of making a “drug, device or procedure” that is actually an abortificant a contraceptive or contraception in Colorado.

I criticized the bill on other grounds. But at least debate over the bill has clarified this important issue, as well as the Catholic opposition to birth control that may prevent implantation. Few Catholics seem interested in banning birth control across the board, though the Church opposes it in all cases.

Obama at Notre Dame

I despise Barack Obama for a lot of reasons, but his support for the right to get an abortion is not among them (though I don't think tax dollars should go to fund abortion or any other medical procedure).

The Town Hall columnist Laura Hollis is upset that Obama will speak at Notre Dame's graduation ceremony in May. So is Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput.

But, while such critics scream and moan, the one thing they do not do is demonstrate that a fertilized egg (through the fetal stage) is a person. The argument against abortion boils down to the claim that God allegedly declares it a sin.

So I again point to the paper written by Diana Hsieh and me demonstrating that a fertilized egg is not a person, and that personhood begins at birth. (I will not post any comments here that do not seriously grapple with the arguments in that paper.)

Chaput forthrightly declares abortion to be a matter of religious faith. But he does offer a bit of good news, reports the Colorado Independent:

Some Catholics in both political parties are deeply troubled by these issues [ e.g., abortion and stem-cell research]. But too many Catholics just don't really care. That's the truth of it. If they cared, our political environment would be different. If 65 million Catholics... really understood their faith, we wouldn't need to waste each other's time arguing about whether the legalized killing of an unborn child is somehow "balanced out" or excused by other good social policies.

Surveys back up Chaput's claim that many Catholics "just don't really care" about banning abortion on grounds of religious faith. And thank God for that.

I wonder, though, what other "good social policies" Chaput has in mind.

GOP Gives Ground on Abortion

Marilyn Musgrave, who lost her last congressional election largely because of angst over her faith-based politics, has a new job, the Denver Post reports.

She will lead a "Susan B. Anthony List" project to try to defeat pro-choice candidates: "We're going into districts where individuals are vulnerable... We're going to use every possible means to make sure that people know the voting records of these individuals."

I think this a great idea, as it continues to demonstrate the priorities of the religious right, which have nothing to do with preserving liberty and everything to do with destroying it.

Meanwhile, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has come out as a weak-kneed pro-choicer. Following is part of the transcript between Steele and GQ magazine:

The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?

Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice.

You do?

Yeah. Absolutely.

Are you saying you don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade?

I think Roe v. Wade -- as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.

Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?

The states should make that choice. That's what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?

Absolutely!

So Steele is trying to please both sides by throwing the matter to the states. But the reason that abortion is properly "an individual choice" is that women have the right to get an abortion, because they have the right to control their own bodies. Thus, citizens of a state do not have the right, and should not have the "individual choice," to vote away the right to get an abortion.

The entire point of American government is to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

Still, Steele's comments indicate at least that some Republican leaders are prepared to slowly back away from the faith-based politics of the religious right.

Contraception 'Medically Acceptable'

It is unbelievable that we're even having this discussion:

[Colorado] Sen. Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood, introduced the measure [Senate Bill 225] to protect birth control from being banned by amendments to the constitution. Of most recent concern was a ballot initiative last year that would have defined a fertilized egg as a person in the state constitution. Coloradans overwhelmingly rejected the initiative.

Critics had pointed out that there could have been unintended consequences to the measure, such as banning birth control.
The theory was that because birth control alters the lining of the uterus where a fertilized egg would be implanted, routine birth control could have been made illegal.

Boyd's measure would prevent birth control from being banned by amendments by defining contraceptive or contraception as a "medically acceptable drug, device, or procedure used to prevent pregnancy."

Two Republicans wanted to change the word "pregnancy" to "contraception," which would open the door to bans on all forms of birth control, such as the pill, which may act to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus (as discussed).

Why are we even debating whether contraception is "medically acceptable?" It obviously is. Do we really need the state's constitution to state as much? Should the constitution also point out that aspirin and eye glasses are "medically acceptable?" More to the point, would Boyd approve of an abortion ban that nevertheless allowed people to use birth control?

Boyd's exercise is pointless. If the faith-based anti-abortion crowd wants to ban birth control that may prevent implantation, it will simply propose to change Boyd's language. Boyd should focus her energies on defending the right to get an abortion, not playing semantic games around the margins.

Church Demeans Raped Girl

"RIO DE JANEIRO -- A 9-year-old girl who was carrying twins, allegedly after being raped by her stepfather, underwent an abortion Wednesday despite complaints from Brazil's Roman Catholic church."

What could possibly be the reason for the Church's insane, inhuman position? A lawyer for the church said, "It's the law of God: Do not kill. We consider this murder."

But apparently it's perfectly okay by God to put the life of a young girl at risk for a pregnancy with practically no chance of ending in successful birth.

Leaving aside the fact that the Christian Bible is at best ambiguous on the matter of abortion, this is an obvious case of a perfectly moral, justified, appropriate abortion. And yet the church is trying to lay a lifetime of guilt on the young girl following her brutal victimization.

Yet contemporary Christian dogma leads logically, inexorably, to the conclusion that the lives of actual human beings must be sacrificed to the lives of fertilized eggs. The fantasy that a fertilized egg is the moral equivalent of a born infant is, as I've indicated, in fact the anti-life position.

Controlling Women for 'Unborn Children'

For the sake of "unborn children," a proposed statute in Tennessee would force many pregnant women to undergo drug and alcohol testing. MamaPundit summarizes, "So if this law is enacted, it means that any woman who suffers a miscarriage, stillbirth, or other serious pregnancy complications, or who gives birth to a disabled child, will face state-mandated drug testing."

Particularly given the fact that most fertilized eggs naturally abort, this opens the door wide for the government to control women's bodies.

This is hardly the first such Nanny State proposal. Here in Colorado, Democrats are trying to politically encourage HIV testing for pregnant women, despite the fact that women and their doctors already know the risk factors and are free to test.

Republicans have also tried to force women to get ultrasound information and delay getting an abortion.

From the Democratic side, this is just about Nanny Statism -- forcing women to do what politicians think is good for them. For many Republicans, politically controlling pregnancy is a wedge to eventually treat the fetus, all the way back to a fertilized egg, as a person under the law, with equal legal protections as born infants. (Democrats would do well to consider what will happen under their Nanny State provisions in the hands of the religious right.)

A born infant is a person with rights that must be protected by government. Until then, the government must respect the rights of the woman to control her own body.

'Personhood' Advances in North Dakoka

The AP reports (via Fox), "A measure approved by the North Dakota House gives a fertilized human egg the legal rights of a human being..."

Those who thought the resounding defeat of a similar measure in Colorado would put an end to such nonsense were overly optimistic. Those driven by faith-based politics will keep pushing their agenda, no matter what, regardless or political or ideological failure.

As Diana Hsieh and I have written, a fertilized egg is not a person. And nobody has every offered any sort of reasonable argument as to why it should be considered a person. But the bill in North Dakota is not about reason. It is about the alleged commandments of God.

'Personhood,' Again

The "Voice of the Catholic Lay Faithful" announces:

Febraury 6, 2009 - Washington, DC – The Personhood movement is catching fire as Maryland joins 15 other states across the country working toward the legal recognition of all human beings as "persons" under the law.

Delegate Don H. Dwyer, Jr. will introduce a Personhood Amendment this coming week in the Maryland General Assembly. The amendment recognizes all human beings from their biological beginning as "persons." ...

"Here we are some 36 years after Roe v. Wade, (the Supreme Court decision that decriminalized abortion), and we now have 3-D and 4-D color sonograms that give us a real-time look into the womb," Del. Dwyer said. "There is no doubt today that there is a human being in the womb and that human being should be considered a person."

Whether or not Dwyer "doubts" that a fertilized egg is a person, it is not, in fact, for the reasons that Diana Hsieh and I explain. (Diana pointed me to the link.) Lack of doubt about something does not imply it is true. Certainty results from overwhelming evidence proving something in the total context of knowledge. Lack of doubt, in this case and many others, implies only an unwillingness to seriously question. There is only one way one can reach the conclusion that a fertilized egg is a person, and that is through religious faith.

The cited release makes the same mistake that all proponents of such measures have made: to leap from "human being" in the sense of being alive with human DNA to "person." No such logical leap is warranted; it is an equivocation. But the advocates of such measures have no need for facts or reason; they have faith.

Tax-Funded Abortions

Douglas Smith complains that Barack Obama has moved to "repeal by executive order the prohibition on using scarce federal dollars to fund groups that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries, otherwise known as the Mexico City Policy."

I quite agree that the United States government should not be subsidizing abortions internationally, or at home. But that's because I don't think the United States government should give any money whatsoever in foreign aid, nor should it fund any health care domestically. But, so long as the federal government is going to fund welfare in and out of our boarders, there's no good reason to exclude abortions.

Smith alleges that Obama's policy is "anti-life." But if Smith cares to glance at the widespread squaller of third-world nations, he might notice that forcing people to bring an embryo to term, when they cannot support a child and the attempt would only further impoverish them, is in fact the anti-life position. That doesn't mean that the U.S. has a positive responsibility to fund welfare for the world's poor, nor to ensure just laws in other nations that permit legal abortion, but it does mean that abortion funding should not be specifically targeted. It is no better or worse than other sorts of welfare funding.

Roe v. Wade Anniversary

January 22 marked the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that liberalized abortion law. Last year Diana Hsieh and I reviewed the reasons why that's a good thing. But the religious right, driven by religious faith, ignores the reasons why abortion should remain legal.

The Rocky Mountain News reports, "Abortion is the slavery issue of our time, author Eric Metaxas told about 400 people at the annual Colorado Right to Life rally Thursday on the steps of the Capitol." Metaxis made it clear that his motive is religious faith: "God is the one who calls you to the battle."

However, the comparison between abortion and slavery completely falls apart in light of the fact that a fertilized egg is not a person, whereas a slave is. As Diana and I also point out, the true comparison is between the abolitionist movement and the progress in making abortion legal. Abolishing slavery and legalizing abortion both protect the rights of people.

Yet, not only does the religious right continue to push its faith-based politics, it makes it a priority, despite the movement's sound defeat last November. For example, Andrew Tallman writes, "[A]bortion is the single greatest moral evil of our day. Nothing else even comes close." But where is his argument that abortion is evil at all? In fact it is the prohibition of abortion that is morally evil. But, to the religious right, violating people's right to get an abortion is more important than fighting terrorism or preserving economic liberty. And that is precisely why the religious right took such a beating at the polls.

Sears Promotes Faith-Based Politics

Alan Sears argues "the fight for religious liberty is the fight for life," i.e., the fight to ban abortion. In other words, Sears, a former federal prosecutor, believes that the "liberty" of some permits them to impose their religious faith by force of law on others.

Sears quotes Madison, who said that one's duty to God "is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society." Sears neglects to mention that Madison also endorsed the separation of church and state and opposed "suffering any Sect to invade [the equal rights] of another."

Sears's entire case rests on the claim that a fertilized egg is a person, and as such properly has all the same rights as a born infant. In general, the proper purpose of government is to protect people's rights, which obviously is compatible with religious liberty. The problem with Sears's case is that a fertilized egg is not a person, and he makes no attempt to prove that it is.

Indeed, nobody from the anti-abortion side has seriously addressed the arguments that Diana Hsieh and I reviewed last year. That is because the case for outlawing abortion -- imposing criminal penalties for it -- rests on religious faith. It is not religious liberty, but religious tyranny, that seeks to violate the rights of actual people based on the faith-based fantasy that a fertilized egg is a person.

Georgia Again Contemplates Abortion Ban

Those who thought the religious right suffered defeat in 2008 oughtn't grow too comfy. Diana Hsieh pointed me to a new abortion-ban bill in Georgia. Georgia Legislative Watch comments:

Abortion: Two pieces of legislation dealing with abortion have been pre-filed. HB 1, introduced by Rep. Bobby Franklin (R), would make abortion a crime by defining life at conception.

HR 5, filed by Rep. Martin Scott (R), is the Human Life Amendment.

As with past sessions, neither proposal stands any chance of passing. They are only mentioned here because abortion is still a hot topic.

Here is part of the text of House Bill 1:

The State of Georgia has the duty to protect all innocent life from the moment of conception until natural death. We know that life begins at conception. After nearly four decades of legal human prenatal murder, it is now abundantly clear that the practice has negatively impacted the people of this state in many ways, including economic, health, physical, psychological, emotional, and medical well-being. These, too, are areas of legitimate concern and duty of this state. The General Assembly therefore makes the following findings of fact: (1) A fetus is a person for all purposes under the laws of this state from the moment of conception...

On the basis of the claim that "life begins at conception," Representative Franklin would declare abortion murder. However, not only is his basic argument false -- life obviously precedes conception -- even if it were true it would not establish the case, as Diana and I point out. The stated foundation of the abortion ban is so weak that it obviously masks Franklin's real motivation: to impose his religious faith by force of law.

ARC on Abortion Rights

The Ayn Rand Center ARC has published some great comments on abortion rights at Opposing Views.

In the first comment, ARC points out that the fundamental issue is not a "woman's right to choose," but rather "a woman's right to her life."

Next, ARC explains the fundamental importance of the first trimester, when an embryo is "a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells." ARC further explains that an embryo is a potential, but not an actual, person.

In the third post, ARC explains, "There are many legitimate reasons why a rational woman might have an abortion -- accidental pregnancy, rape, birth defects, danger to her health."

ARC's final post directly challenges the "pro-life" pretense of the anti-abortion movement:

Sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life to an embryo is not upholding the "right-to-life."

The anti-abortionists' claim to being "pro-life" is a classic Big Lie. You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue.

Meanwhile, the central "argument" of the anti-abortion side is an equivocation between human life in the sense of living tissue with human DNA and a human person. There is a reason why practically all advocates of abortion bans attempt to bridge that gap with religious faith.

Palin's Anti-Abortion Allies

Before the election, I discovered a document from Alaska Right to Life. An article by Bob Bird, former president of the organization, deserves a look:

Well, what do the federal courts and presidents have to do with Alaska? Simply this: these erroneous attitudes have trickled down into the state level as well. Listening to our pro-life legislators, lawyers and governor lament and berate the latest 3-2 Alaska Supreme Court decision striking down the "Parental Consent" law is praiseworthy -- yet every one of them fail to realize that no court's opinion need be obeyed. ...

Scan both the federal and state constitutions until you go blind, and you will not find any provision requiring the chief executive to enforce court opinions. Indeed, the executive’s opinion is clearly superior to the courts', as the constitution (either state or federal) must be defended, even from those other members of different branches of the government who wish to usurp the limits placed on their powers. ...

[A] pro-life Congress could pass a statute removing the court's jurisdiction on human life cases. ...

[P]assing a constitutional amendment is admitting that the Supreme Court indeed has the right to sweep away state laws. This is a dangerous admission, for the courts have absolutely no such right. ...

Governor Palin and the others asked for public support. Indeed, they deserve it, for their hearts are in the right place, if not their heads. The support they need is a massive flood of POM's, e-mails and letters, telling them to give the state Supreme Court a message: "You've made your opinion. Now try to enforce it!"

Bird's position is extraordinary. He is claiming that governors are not bound by state courts and that the president is not bound by the Supreme Court. He is claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment offers no protection from state tyranny. Bird's position implies that the president need not abide by any of the Supreme Court's rulings regarding any part of the Bill of Rights. Ultimately Bird would throw out the separation of powers on which our nation is built and open the door to dictatorship.

Does anyone wish to claim that the politics of this faction of the ant-abortion movement are remotely compatible with liberty?

Polls and Abortion

Back on September 28, Rasmussen conducted a poll that covered Colorado's Amendment 48:

In November Amendment 48 entitled "Definition of a Person" will be on the ballot. This amendment to the Colorado constitution defines a person a s-- "any human being from the moment of fertilization". If the election were held today would you vote for or against this amendment?

39% For
50% Against
11% Not sure

Do you believe that life begins at conception, or at birth, or somewhere in between?
41% At conception
22% At birth
33% Somewhere in between
4% Not sure

Support for the measure dropped by the election; only 26.7 percent of voters favored the measure.

What is extraordinary is that the measure did not receive a passing vote in a single county. In El Paso county, home of Focus on the Family, the measure got 37.6 percent of the vote.

Unfortunately, the poll reinforced the fallacy that the measure had something to do with when "life begins." Amendment 48 said nothing about when "life begins." And the poll includes no correct answer to the question anyway. As Diana Hsieh and I pointed out, life precedes conception; both the sperm cell and egg are alive. Life is an unending chain spanning back billions of years. The relevant question is not when life begins -- everyone grants a fertilized egg is alive -- but when personhood begins.

Forman on Slavery and Abortion

In an October article, Robert Forman, like many evangelicals, compares abortion to slavery:

Slave owners and those who were in the slave trade were unapologetically pro-choice when it came to slaves and slavery. They felt that "if you don’t like slavery, don't own a slave" -- but leave the "right" for those who do desire to own slaves to be able to own slaves. That's very similar to the "if you don't like abortions, don't have one" -- but leave the "right" for those who do want an abortion to be able get an abortion.

Forman is ignoring one minor distinction: a slave is a person, while a fertilized egg is not. Notably, in his entire article, Forman makes no effort to show that that an embryo is a person. You'd think that somebody so concerned about the alleged evils of abortion would try to do that.

Perhaps in his next article Forman would care to answer the arguments made by Diana Hsieh and me demonstrating that personhood begins at birth.

There is a useful comparison to be made between slavery and abortion bans, in that both violate the rights of people. Diana and I make that case as well.

God's Only Party

Yesterday I noted that two Colorado Republican leaders continue to insist that their party promote faith-based politics. Today Gregg Jackson continues the crusade to ban abortion in his column for Town Hall.

Jackson's goal, and his advise for Republicans, is "To end abortion... to believe that all life, both born and unborn, is an unalienable right and protect it at all cost."

That is, a fertilized egg is a person and must be protected, regardless of the costs to the woman.

What Jackson fails to provide is any reason why we should think that a fertilized egg is a person. That's not surprising, because there is no earthly reason.

Personhoood: Steve Van Horn Misrepresents Hsieh

Colorado just defeated Amendment 48 by 73 to 27 percent. The measure would have defined a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution, with all the rights to life, liberty, property, equality of justice, and due process of law. I worked with Diana Hsieh to help defeat it.

I've been meaning to reply to an October 27 article by Steve Van Horn that attacks an earlier piece by Hsieh. Even though the election is over, the matter is still worth addressing, as it shows the sorts of weak arguments made by the supporters of Amendment 48.

Hsieh expressly counters the argument that "human life" is sufficient for personhood:

Opponents of abortion claim that embryos and fetuses have the same right to life as babies because they are distinct, living human beings. Undoubtedly, an embryo or fetus is alive, not inert matter. It's also human--not canine or hippopotamus. Yet every distinct, living skin cell a person washes off in the shower also contains human DNA. A tumor is human tissue distinct from its host. The embryo or fetus is different: it might develop into a born baby. Yet the differences between an embryo or fetus and that born baby are vast.

Notice that Hsieh explicitly notes why an "embryo or fetus is different" from a skin cell or tumor. Yet, ignoring Hsieh's statement, Van Horn claims that what Hsieh "fails to distinguish is the difference between a distinct living cell and a unique living being."

Then Van Horn explains that an eagle's egg, like a human egg, has the capacity to develop into an adult member of the species. But so what? Van Horn points out that current law provides criminal penalties for destroying an eagle's egg. It also provides criminal penalties for gratuitously injuring an adult dog or cat, but none of those things is a person. More to the point, none of those things is contained wholly within the body of a woman, and the fact that a fertilized egg is in such a condition is why the woman (and not anyone else) has the right to get an abortion.

Next Van Horn argues that, as there are "vast" differences between a fertilized egg and a born infant, so there are "differences between an infant, a toddler, a teenager, a middle aged adult and a 98 year old." Then Van Horn argues that, as a fertilized egg is dependent on the woman, so is an infant. But in these arguments Van Horn utterly ignores the relevant distinctions. His is an exercise in absurdist rationalism.

Hsieh briefly summarizes those distinctions:

In the early stages of pregnancy, the embryo has nothing in common with an infant except its DNA. Its form is similar to the embryos of other mammals; it cannot survive outside the womb; it lacks any kind of awareness. To call that clump of cells a "person" is sheer nonsense.

Even when more developed, the fetus is not a biologically separate entity capable of independent action, like a baby. It exists as part of the woman carrying it, wholly contained within and dependent on her. 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 not yet an individual human life; it is not yet a person.

Van Horn simply refuses to confront the substance of Hsieh's argument. Instead, he closes by equating a fertilized egg with a person and abortion with murder. The opponents of abortion go through the motions of debating the issue, but their arguments are hollow, obvious attempts to paper over the fact that their position derives not from reason but from religious faith.

48 Supporters Aim to Try Again

As I anticipated, the huge loss of Amendment 48 has not dampened the plans of the religious right. The measure would have defined a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution.

A blogger named Dani emphasizes the point. Dani is "a right-wing Christian fanatic on assignment from God to be a good helper to my husband and to train up my children with the Fear and Admonition of the Lord!" Okay, then.

Dani looks on the bright side of Amendment 48's defeat:

Even though Amendment 48 didn't pass, we still consider this a victory for the pro-life movement since over 550,000 people voted to affirm the personhood of the pre-born Child yesterday in Colorado! On only a $200,000 budget, it's hard to compete with multi-million dollar corporations like Planned Parenthood who put out deceitful attack ads packed with lies in order to defeat Amendment 48. Well, we certainly wouldn't expect godless baby-killers to be honest while promoting their agenda, now would we? The majority of people are evil, and the majority voted against personhood, but we are not giving up that easy, in fact, the battle has just begun...

Notice that Dani does not specify a single "lie" by the opposition. Certainly she could not find any such faults with the paper written by Diana Hsieh and me criticizing Amendment 48.

Dani then reproduces the media release of a new group called Personhood USA, which "plans to assist local pro-life groups in different states to put personhood amendments on their states ballot by using the petition process."

The group proudly declares that its purpose is to impose religious faith by law:

"Praise Jesus! The pro-life tide is rising in America, now is the time for the entire pro-life movement to turn the focus off from permitting murder but attempting to 'regulate' it, to pushing for the recognition of the God given right to life for all innocent persons. Persons are humans beings from the moment of fertilization." Cal Zastrow, Co-Founder of Personhood USA.

Keith Mason, "one of the Personhood Amendment organizers," said, "Personhood has changed the abortion debate. Now we are asking, 'When does human life begin?' The opposition can not and will not answer this question, but we can. And when we answer that question, we win."

Hsieh and I address the matter at length in our paper. Not a single advocate of Amendment 48 has even attempted to refute our arguments. (Wayne Laugesen has come the closest to doing so.)

Meanwhile, Mason and his crew have utterly failed to sustain an argument that personhood begins at fertilization. Notice that Mason says he can answer the question, but he refrains from doing so in the release. The "argument" at PersonhoodUSA's web page is childish equivocation.

So pony up, Mason: prove to the world that personhood begins at the moment of fertilization, taking into account the issues that Hsieh and I raise in our paper. The fact that you cannot do so indicates why Coloradans did not take your movement seriously.

See PersonhoodUSA's web page for a list of the 16 states the group plans to target in the future. The magnificent defeat of the measure in Colorado should slow down efforts elsewhere. Yet the group may still find some traction in some areas to the degree that people reject reason in favor of religious faith.

Amendment 48 and Personhood: Reply to Laugesen

Here I extend a debate over Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution. I also want also to summarize the major issues, so hopefully the piece will be of interest even to those who haven't followed that debate so far.

A few days ago the Colorado Springs Gazette published an editorial endorsing Amendment 48. I wrote a reply, which Wayne Laugesen of the Gazette answered. Even though Laugesen is wrong on this issue (though I often agree with him on other matters), it has been a pleasure to debate the matter with someone who takes objections seriously and thinks though the implications of the arguments.

The Language and Intention of Amendment 48

Again, Amendment 48 would not merely define a fertilized egg as "human," "life," or even a "person." Rather, it would grant a fertilized egg the same legal rights as a born infant, the rights to life, liberty, property, equality of justice, and due process of law. Furthermore, the explicit goal of the sponsors of Amendment 48 is to outlaw all abortion, except when the woman certainly would otherwise die. That's bad enough, but the measure logically also prohibits certain forms of birth control, medical research, and fertility treatments, as Diana Hsieh and I review.

Laugesen answers that federal and state law would continue to keep abortion legal, and that the political climate is not right for such far-reaching prohibitions. However, the advocates of the measure have promised a long-term fight to overturn Roe v. Wade as well as state laws allowing abortion, and Amendment 48 would grant them a powerful weapon in that fight.

If Laugesen doesn't think Amendment 48 could eventually ban abortion, I'm at a loss to understand why he favors the measure. It's a bit odd to endorse a measure that one thinks will have consequences dramatically different than what the sponsors of the measure anticipate. As I argued previously, the problems that Laugesen seeks to address aren't even real problems, and if they were they could be addressed with delimited statutes.

The Conditions of Personhood

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of personhood? Obviously a person is alive and human (though if we were to discover intelligent life elsewhere presumably "person" would become the broader concept). But many other things are alive and human, in the sense of containing human DNA, including my kidney and every cell in my body. So those conditions are necessary but not sufficient.

A person must have the genetic code capable of creating or sustaining an independent existence. Notice that it's not true that each person has distinct DNA (and I think I've misstated this point myself), for identical twins start out as the same fertilized egg and then split apart from each other. So unique DNA is not even a necessary condition of personhood. But DNA capable of forming and sustaining a human body is necessary.

Part of the difficulty of thinking about a fertilized egg is that it is in some respects unique. It shares some similarities with with other human cells and organs, yet it has the distinctive capacity to develop into a born infant and then an adult human (in the right conditions). It is this distinctiveness that draws some to equate fertilization with personhood. Yet that is a mistake. The only options are not "living human never-person" and "living human person." A fertilized egg is a third sort of thing: it is living and human with the potential for turning into a person. But a potential is not an actual. It is ludicrous to equate a zygote, a mass of undifferentiated cells with no organs, with a born infant, and declare that both should be legally indistinguishable.

Laugesen claims that only superstition can mark the onset of personhood, if we reject the point of fertilization. This ignores the obvious, blindingly bright line: birth. Something dramatic happens at birth. No longer is the fetus completely contained within the body of the woman, completely dependent on her at the biological level for oxygen and sustenance. At birth, the fetus becomes a separate baby, able to breath with his own lungs, digest food with his own organs, and, notably, leave his mother. A born infant is still highly dependent in the sense that somebody must provide him with nutrition, warmth, etc., yet a born infant is radically independent relative to a fetus in that the born infant is a physically separate biological entity.

Personhood implies legal rights, as Amendment 48 recognizes. Yet, to have legal rights, individual rights, one must be an individual in the basic physical sense. A fetus has no such independent existence. And that matters very much. For instance, if a woman needs cancer treatment that might harm the fetus, even though the woman might not otherwise die before delivery, the woman has every right to get that treatment, even if it kills the fetus.

Laugesen is correct that the development of a fertilized egg to a late-stage fetus is a continual and gradual one, without any momentary lines of demarcation. The brain develops slowly; it does not just pop instantly into the fetus's head. However, that does not imply that a fertilized egg is the same thing as a late-stage fetus. The two are radically different. One is just a few cells, the other has all the organs that an adult person has.

It is this distinction that draws Leonard Peikoff, for instance, to a discussion that centers on early-term abortions:

The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.

We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman’s choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman’s body.

This points to two additional factors that are necessary for personhood: developed human organs and physical separateness (i.e., birth). Consider, for instance, that if a woman's body expels a living fertilized egg, we do not consider that she has given "birth" to a "child." We don't hold a funeral complete with a miniature coffin. (As Hsieh and I point out, most fertilized eggs are naturally flushed out of a woman's body; we do not consider this to be some sort of horrific tragedy, as we would if all fertilized eggs truly were people.)

Together, those conditions of personhood -- life, human DNA, developed organs, and physical separateness -- are sufficient for personhood. If something doesn't have those four characteristics, it's not a person.

Peikoff answers those who would equate a potential person with an actual one:

If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an "unborn child," we could, with equal logic, call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students.

The entire case for granting personhood status to fertilized eggs rests on the fallacy of equating a potential with an actual.

The Meaning of "Human"

Laugesen claims, as I've heard before (and as Kristi Burton, sponsor of Amendment 48 has also claimed), that the meaning of "person" and "human" are indistinguishable. That's clearly wrong. For instance, we say that a kidney is a human organ, but we don't claim that a kidney is a person. As Hsieh and I have argued, the advocates of Amendment 48 routinely equivocate on the term "human," jumping from "containing human DNA" to personhood for no good reason. One finds this dual meaning of "human" whether one turns to the Oxford English Dictionary or Dictionary.com.

A Zygote Versus a Felon

Laugesen argues that, as we can restrict the life and liberty of a murderous felon, so we can restrict the life and liberty of a zygotic "person." However, the comparison falls apart because a zygote is not a person. If a zygote were a person, it would be quite unjust to treat a zygote as though it were guilty of first-degree murder. A murderer has willfully removed himself from civil society. Notably, to be criminally punished one must be found guilty according to "due process of law" -- a right granted to fertilized eggs by Amendment 48.

A fertilized egg is not a person. Amendment 48 is wrong in its assumptions and frightening in its implications.

Amendment 48: Laugesen Replies

Recently I replied to an editorial by Colorado Spring's Gazette that endorsed Amendment 48. Wayne Laugesen, the editorial page editor of the paper, took the time to write a detailed reply, which he graciously allowed me to reproduce below. I will respond in a subsequent post. -Ari Armstrong

Wayne Laugesen: re: "Nobody argues that any fetus is guilty of felony murder, so the comparison is bizarre."

The point is this: You seem concerned that if an egg is lawfully recognized as a "person," nobody will be allowed to kill it without landing in prison. A death row inmate is indisputably a "person." So clearly, we make lawful decisions to kill some "persons." We may lawfully kill a "person" convicted of first degree murder because the "person" is burdensome to society. We may lawfully kill a "person" who threatens our safety after breaking into our home. We may also lawfully kill a person whose life depends upon a mother's womb, because that person isn't independent and may be burdensome to the mother and society. Some may not like this fact of settled law, but it is a fact. The point is that defining a fertilized egg or a mature fetus as a "person" does not preclude someone from lawfully killing that person. If that were the case, we would not be allowed to kill in self defense or to kill murder convicts, simply because they are "persons" by any definition. Ending abortion may well be the intent of 48's authors, but their intent wouldn't make it so.

All major, high ranking definitions I can find of "person" and "human" are interchangeable.

Yes, your liver is a human element, but it does not contain all of the components of a complete person. It will never have its own brain, or its own eyes or ears, etc., and it will never be capable of reading and writing and paying taxes. The same cannot be said for a zygote, which is the beginning stage of the life of a "person," whether the zygote lives a day or continues to mature for 100 years. The life begins at that moment of conception, and it ends at the moment of death. There is not a magical event somewhere in between, convenient as that event might be. Scientifically, a human life is an exact timeline with one beginning and one end. Any theories to the contrary involve an imaginary event at a convenient point on the timeline, and that sounds like religion. Bestowing rights at an arbitrary point on the timeline of life is perfectly logical; bestowing "life" or "personhood," by contrast, involves superstition. This issue is not really about "person" or "non-person," the issue is "full rights," "no rights," or "limited rights" for some persons but not for all persons. Society does not guarantee all "persons" equal outcomes in life. Society does not protect all "persons" equally.

I think we would agree that a six-month-old fetus is a human with a brain, a mouth, a nose, arms, legs, etc. and etc. Correct? Yet society, knowing those facts, has decided to protect a woman's right to kill that "person" or "human" or "fetus" or whatever one chooses to call him or her. This has little to do with science, and much to do with the legitimate human practice of allocating rights. If we pretend it's based in a meaningful scientific distinction, we're entertaining a convenient fantasy. In truth, it's based in legitimate practical considerations and the allocation of rights.

That being the case, it's not important to pretend that a fertilized egg is something other than the first stage in the life of a "human," and therefore a "person." I don't see why it's a problem to call a person a person, and then decide which persons have rights worth protecting and at what point on the timeline of life those rights deserve a societal defense. This has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religious leaders and believers can make up the rules as they go. Therefore, any religion is free to define "life" however it chooses, or to decide who has rights and when those rights are endowed. Religions that wish to abuse women, for example, are free to define only men as "persons" and then try to impose their definitions through theocratic rule of law. But science is objective, and scientifically life begins at conception. Our laws, in a constitutional Republic as opposed a theocracy, should use scientifically objective definitions.

You agree with me that a fertilized egg is living and human. And I think we basically agree on most major points in this discussion. The main difference between our positions is the fact that you are using the word "person" to describe a being with a full slate of human rights that society must accept, while maintaining that a human with limited rights is something less than a "person." That requires you, therefore, to argue that a death row inmate is not a "person," and a predator shot by a victim is not a "person." After all, these humans do not have the same rights to live as other humans do.

I, by contrast, am using the word "person" to describe a "human" at any stage of development, acknowledging that society does not treat all "persons" equally, it cannot, it never has and it never will. Again, scientifically speaking a sprouting acorn is biologically an oak. That does not mean it's due all the protection of a giant shade tree. Likewise, I understand that society will never protect a day-old zygote the way it protects a member of Congress. If we look at this issue through a lens of reproductive politics and sociopolitical practicality, Amendment 48 is a menace. If we look at it through a lens of incorporating truthful, logical, scientific, objective definitions into law, it seems like a reasonable proposition. And I know you don't believe that it negates Roe v. Wade. I'm equally certain that you understand how Roe v. Wade has absolutely no role in Colorado's abortion laws, which exceed the minimal requirements of Roe v. Wade. Of course, all of this is completely academic as Amendment 48 has never had the slightest chance of passing because it's not politically viable here. It is, however, a good topic for discovery and discussion. I found your paper on this issue thorough and well written. -- Wayne

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.

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.

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.

The New No On 48 Sign

Some jerk stole my "No on 48" yard sign. But it wasn't a very good sign, anyway; I had to cut out the part that said, "It Simply Goes Too Far."

Now I've made a new sign that actually contains some substantive information:



To use this sign, you need merely download the pdf file, print out the two pages, and protect them from the elements with plastic or glass. And, when somebody steals your sign, you can just print out another one!

Reply to Kristi Burton on Amendment 48

On September 19, the Pagosa Daily Post published an op/ed by Kristi Burton favoring Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's Constitution. Today The Denver Post published the same piece.

The Pagosa paper published my reply on September 23. Given the wide distribution of Burton's article via the Post, my reply is timely:

Amendment 48 Smoke Screen

Ari Armstrong

Kristi Burton tries to hide Amendment 48 behind a cloud of smoke in her September 19 Post opinion article. The measure would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution.

Burton's claim that Amendment 48 "doesn't change the constitution in any way" is dishonest. It would add a new section to the state 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."

The related provisions pertain to the rights to life, liberty, equality of justice, and due process of law.

The constitution guides interpretation of statutes. For example, existing statutes define first-degree murder as deliberately causing the death of a "person," resulting in life in prison or the death penalty. Burton has never indicated what criminal penalties she wants for abortion.

At least Burton acknowledges she wants to outlaw "abortion on demand." However, she does not admit the full legal ramifications of Amendment 48 if implemented. Women would be forced to carry to term pregnancies even in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity. Women suspected of purposely inducing a miscarriage might be subject to criminal investigation.

Burton claims, "Mothers also possess personhood and the amendment in no way endangers their well-being." However, if a fertilized egg is a person, then the life of a fertilized egg must be balanced against the life of the woman, with details to be decided by the courts.

Nor does Burton discuss the impact of Amendment 48 on birth control, fertility treatments, and medical research. The popular birth control pill and other types may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Fertility treatments help hundreds of Colorado women become pregnant every year, but those treatments regularly involve the destruction or freezing of fertilized eggs. Amendment 48 would ban those forms of birth control and fertility treatments.

The facts are these: a fertilized egg, as it develops into an embryo and fetus, is wholly contained within the woman's body and completely dependent on the woman's body for sustenance. This is radically different from a born child, which, while still very needy, can eat and breathe using its own organs and leave its mother to be cared for by somebody else. Thus, personhood begins at birth. A pregnant woman has the right to liberty, including the right to get an abortion.

The same facts show Burton is also wrong in tying abortion to "taking away the lives and dignity of the elderly, sick and disabled." While a fertilized egg is not a person, the elderly, sick, and disabled are people.

Burton rightly criticizes the view that "each person decides" when personhood begins. That is why Burton is wrong to arbitrarily declare that a fertilized egg is a person, when the biological facts show otherwise.

For a more detailed description of the harms of the measure, see "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" at the Secular Government website.

The Post also published a piece by L. Indra Lusero and Lynn M. Paltrow critical of the measure. They offer two concrete examples:

For example, in Washington, D.C., doctors sought a court order to force Ayesha Madyun to have a C-section, claiming the fetus faced a 50 to 75 percent chance of infection if not delivered surgically. The court said, "All that stood between the Madyun fetus and its independent existence, separate from its mother, was -- put simply -- a doctor's scalpel." With that, the court granted the order. When the procedure was done, there was no evidence of infection.

In Florida, Laura Pemberton wanted to have a vaginal birth after a previous C-section. Her doctors believed that her fetus had a right to be born by a C-section. A sheriff came to her house, took her into custody while she was in active labor, strapped her legs together and forced her to go to a hospital, where they were holding a hearing about the rights of the fetus. A lawyer was appointed for her fetus but not for her. She was forced to have a C-section. Pemberton subsequently gave birth vaginally to four more children, defying the medical and court predictions of harm.

On September 23, the Rocky Mountain News also published a good letter by Dr. Thomas W. Moffatt opposed to Amendment 48:

As a Catholic and retired pro-life obstetrician, I am very concerned about Amendment 48. I am concerned, in a pluralistic, democratic society, about imposing my religious beliefs on another. There is, then, nothing to stop others from imposing their beliefs on me. But from a purely medical and pro-life point of view, how can I impose my beliefs on another to the point that women can and will die?

I have been faced with situations in my years of practice in which I had to decide if one person or two would die. Two prime examples are ectopic - or tubal - pregnancies, and infected pregnancies. Must we now allow a woman to die if she is hemorrhaging from a ruptured fallopian tube? Should both the mother and child die in the case of an infected pregnancy, which often, sadly, occurs in the middle trimester?

Will a physician, in saving a woman's life, be subject to criminal prosecution? We know some prosecutor will, eventually, try to make a name for himself by charging a physician with manslaughter or worse.

Amendment 48 must be defeated, along with its possible future stepchildren.

Abortion Warning from South Dakota

I have been warning about the problem of capitulating to the Amendment 48 crowd. The Washington Post reveals what can happen when defenders of abortion rights refuse to fight for their principles.

The paper reports:

For the second time since 2006, South Dakota voters are being asked to outlaw almost all abortions. A ballot initiative called Initiated Measure 11 would ban the procedure except in cases of rape, incest and a narrow interpretation of the health and life of the woman.

Voters rejected a more restrictive measure in 2006, but polls suggested that South Dakotans would have voted yes if it had included exceptions.

Because, some opponents argue, Amendment 48 "simply goes to far," I fear Colorado will soon face a similar measure that is still horrific in its implications but that doesn't go quite as far.

The Post discusses one reason why the South Dakota measure is bad:

Marvin Buehner, a pro-choice Rapid City doctor who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, said the law "would amount to a total ban."

"If there's a risk of a Class 4 felony if I don't meet the ambiguous standard of 'serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily organ or system,' there's no way I would consider doing an abortion for health reasons," Buehner said. "This represents incredible government interference in the practice of medicine."

Notably, some advocates of the measure explicitly say that God is behind the measure. Such faith-based politics has no place in a free country.

Ron Paul: 'Person' From Conception

A little over a year ago, Congressman Ron Paul, formerly a Libertarian and Republican presidential candidate, sponsored House Resolution 2597, which states that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception" and that "the term 'person' shall include all human life" so defined. The proposal also states that "the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review" any measure that "protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth" or "prohibits, limits, or regulates... the performance of abortions."

In other words, Ron Paul wants not only to overturn Roe v. Wade but to outlaw all abortions.

For an explanation for why a fertilized egg is not a person, and why any legal doctrine based on the faith-based fantasy that it is promises legal chaos and grotesque violations of the rights of actual people, see "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life." Amendment 48 is Colorado's version of Paul's proposal.

I learned of 2597 indirectly from "Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty," on which Paul states he is "supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate," rather than Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate. I'd never heard of Baldwin, so I looked up his web page. There, he states:

I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to demand that Congress enact Dr. Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act which would set forth that every unborn child is a "person" under the Constitution, entitled to equal protection of the law and therefore, no unborn child could be killed without due process of law.

That pointed me to Paul's proposal. This just goes to show that many people pretending to advocate liberty are in fact its profound enemies.

Amendment 48 Updates

Diana Hsieh, who co-authored a paper with me titled, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," pointed out several articles relevant to the measure, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution.

The Denver Post published a fairly solid editorial against it. Unfortunately, the editorial includes this unfortunate argument: "While personal definitions of when life begins are varied, Amendment 48's definition doesn't fit with good science. Medical and scientific experts set the start of pregnancy at the point a fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterus."

It is true that Amendment 48 would grant rights to a fertilized egg even before it implants in the uterus, and that expands the harm of the measure if passed and implemented. However, by referring to "personal definitions of when life begins," the Post places the entire debate in the realm of subjectivism. (Besides, the only scientifically valid answer to the question of when life begins is "approximately four billion years ago," as life has been an uninterupted chain since. Both the egg and sperm are alive prior to fertilization. The relevant question is when personhood begins.)

Then the Post takes a pragmatist turn:

The debate over personhood was settled in 1973 by the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision on whether states could outlaw abortions. The court defined a fetus as a person if it developed into the third trimester and said states could not ban abortions of fetuses until that late stage in a pregnancy. The high court's definition works. Amendment 48's doesn't.

But what is the basis of the claim? Isn't the "third trimester" just another "personal definition," according to the Post? If one definition can have force of law, why can't another?

The advocates of Amendment 48 must be smiling. They never thought the measure would pass. What they wanted to do was advance their cause. They'll be quite happy to outlaw abortion in incremental steps. What they have accomplished with Amendment 48 is to define the end point, toward which most of their opponents have sprinted. The paper by Diana and me is a notable exception.

The Rocky Mountain News also published a pretty good editorial against the measure. The Rocky correctly describes the central purpose of the measure:

What Amendment 48 proponents would like to do, by their own admission, is outlaw all abortions. They can't do that by a state amendment, of course, so long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. And they know this. So Amendment 48 lays the foundation for outlawing abortions if Roe is ever overturned - assuming the measure is not struck down by the courts because of existing federal rulings.

The Rocky wonders whether the measure could "be used from the outset to regulate other areas, such as in vitro fertilization, stem cell research and even contraception." Certainly it could be so used if federal rules on abortion were removed.

But the Rocky thinks it implausible that Amendment 48 could trigger investigations into miscarriages or prevent women from obtaining medical treatment that "might harm a fertilized egg." Why are those concerns implausible? The Rocky offers no argument. While I doubt miscarriages would be routinely investigated, they would have to be if the measure were implemented and a miscarriage were deemed suspicious. For example, what if a woman's associate called the police claiming the woman induced a miscarriage by taking certain herbs or physical measures? If a fertilized egg is legally a person, such cases would have to become a criminal matter. Likewise, if a fertilized egg is a person, then the risks to the egg must be weighed against the risks to the woman. This scenario is not only plausible but logically necessitated.

Nobably, the Rocky approves of "some restrictions on abortion," but it doesn't specify which ones. Amendment 48 "attempts to go too far," says the Rocky -- but how far is far enough? Again, Amendment 48 has done precisely what its advocates must have anticipated: move the public debate in the direction of more government control.

What neither newspaper mentions are the relevant biological facts of pregnancy. From the moment of conception through the fetal stage, the embryo/fetus is wholly contained within the woman's body and wholly dependent upon her for sustenance. Thus, an embryo/fetus is radically different from a born child. For a more detailed argument, see the paper.

The Rocky also published three letters about abortion. Here is the argument by Paul Predecki:

The fetus in the womb is unquestionably (a) alive, (b) human, (c) unique (its DNA is different from that of either parent) and (d) totally innocent. ...

Certainly the baby is totally dependent on the mother, but we are all dependent on others to varying extents. Surely dependence should not justify termination.

Diana and I explain why Predecki's points do not imply personhood. And Predecki's conflation of the position of the fertilized egg with a generalized "dependence" is ridiculous. When I purchase a loaf of bread from a grocery store, that's hardly the same condition as being wholly contained within a woman's body.

Patricia Szott refers to an "unborn child," indicating the main line of attack of opponents of abortion: merely to assume that a fertilized egg is a person, without argument. That is because the foundation of the belief is rooted in religious faith, not reason.

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..."

Now for some good news. As Diana blogs, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled that a fertilized egg is not a person. Hsieh cites the ACLU, which in turn cites Daily Kos. Here's a summary of the case:

The case involved an Illinois couple suing their fertility clinic for tens of thousands of dollars because the clinic inadvertently had destroyed unimplanted eggs stored at the facility. The lower court had accepted the argument that a human being is created when an egg is fertilized, regardless of whether the fertilized egg is implanted in a woman’s body or left in a Petri dish. Left undisturbed, the lower court’s decision could have limited the ability of women in Illinois to access contraceptive services and genetic testing. Moreover, the decision would curb the ability of couples in Illinois to use reproductive technologies, such as in vitro fertilization, in starting a family.

So there is some sense left in the world. But the rampant subjectivism and pragmatism of the left is slowly giving ground to those pressing for faith-based politics.

Palin and Abortion: Health Risks

Douglas Burns points to a 2006 story from the Associated Press regarding Sarah Palin's views on abortion:

The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant.

Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother's life was in danger. When it came to her daughter, she said, "I would choose life."

The bit about rape is consistent with an account from Time:

Andrew Halcro, a noted Palin critic who ran against her as an independent in the governor's race... recalls one debate in October 2006 in which, after repeated questions about her opposition to abortion even in cases of rape or incest, she looked at the moderator with exasperation and asked if they were going to talk about anything besides abortion.

Previously I wrote that Palin "ardently opposes abortion... apparently even in cases of rape, incest, or health problems."

I still have not seen anything that clarifies Palin's views on abortion where health problems are concerned. Does she support legal abortion in any case regarding a health problem of the fetus? Presumably not, though I've not seen a clear statement on the matter.

She claims to support legal abortion "if the mother's life was in danger" (a paraphrase, not a direct quote), but that hardly helps. Rarely is it the case that doctors know absolutely that, if they don't remove and thereby kill the embryo or fetus, the woman certainly will die. Most cases are not so clear cut. An abortion may reduce health risks to the woman, though only some women in such cases would otherwise die. An abortion may also reduce physical harm to a woman who would not otherwise die. Where would Palin draw that line? Rational voters deserve an answer.

Burton's Campaign of Obfuscation

Kristi Burton, sponsor of Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution, intentionally obfuscates the facts of the measure.

Burton told the Rocky Mountain News, "They [critics] are missing the core issue of when life begins. That is what this is trying to establish."

Baloney.

Amendment 48 does not say, "Life begins with conception." As Diana Hsieh and I review in our paper, the measure states, "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." Diana and I point out the implications of the measure at length. Moreover, Buron's comment is factually wrong, as the paper points out.

Diana and I discuss the nature of personhood at some length and explain why a fertilized egg does not qualify. Perhaps Burton would care to reply to those arguments rather than repeat her platitudes.

A September 9 story from the Rocky quotes more of Burton's views as expressed on KBDI-Channel 12:

Why this amendment is needed: "It recognizes the advances in modern medical science, which tell us that human life really does begin at the moment of conception. At that moment we have unique DNA that makes this a truly unique individual. Amendment 48 empowers the citizens of Colorado to take this issue into their own hands and to direct the elected officials and judges on how important life decisions should be made."

Details, such as the legal status of fertilized eggs in test tubes, can be addressed later: "What this amendment does is, it provides a common-sense starting point. Before we can deal with issues like that or the ones that they talk of -- birth control and in vitro fertilization -- those are issues that will be dealt with later on in the democratic process. Before we can do that, we first of all have to lay a foundation."

The amendment values life: "We can all agree that life has been cheapened in our society... People, especially in my generation, are tired of that. We want to restore value to human life and say that every person truly counts."

At least here Burton makes a slightly more sophisticated argument regarding unique DNA. However, unique DNA does not qualify something as a person, for reasons that Diana and I discuss. Burton equivocates on the term "individual," which in some contexts implies an individual person (as opposed to an individual entity).

Obviously Amendment 48, if implemented, would ban abortions in all cases except perhaps extreme risk to the mother's life. (It would be pleasant if Burton would mention whether she thinks any level of risk to the mother's life would justify an abortion.) But for Burton to punt on the issues of birth control and fertility treatments is grossly irresponsible. Amendment 48 has clear implications for such things, and for Burton to ignore those consequences further demonstrates that it is she who would cheapen the lives of actual persons.

Biden Invites Catholic "Correction"

A couple of days ago, I pointed out that, by making abortion a matter of religious faith, Senator Joseph Biden empowered those who would outlaw the practice. Now Cardinal Justin F. Rigali and Bishop William Lori have issued a statement "correcting" Biden on the issue. (I learned of this from the AP.)

Let's start at the beginning. Here's what Biden said on "Meet the Press" on September 7:

[When does life begin?] I'd say, "Look, I know when it begins for me." It's a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths -- Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others -- who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They're intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life -- I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society. And I know you get the push back, "Well, what about fascism?" Everybody, you know, you going to say fascism's all right? Fascism isn't a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks fascism is a good idea. ...

[W]hat [I] voted against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion. I voted against telling everyone else in the country that they have to accept my religiously based view that it's a moment of conception. There is a debate in our church, as Cardinal Egan would acknowledge, that's existed. Back in "Summa Theologia," when Thomas Aquinas wrote "Summa Theologia," he said there was no -- it didn't occur until quickening, 40 days after conception. How am I going out and tell you, if you or anyone else that you must insist upon my view that is based on a matter of faith? And that's the reason I haven't. But then again, I also don't support a lot of other things. I don't support public, public funding. I don't, because that flips the burden. That's then telling me I have to accept a different view. This is a matter between a person's God, however they believe in God, their doctor and themselves in what is always a --and what we're going to be spending our time doing is making sure that we reduce considerably the amount of abortions that take place by providing the care, the assistance and the encouragement for people to be able to carry to term and to raise their children.

So basically Biden's argument is that, while the issue properly is a matter of religious faith, people disagree about religious matters, so abortion ought not be outlawed. In other words, subjectivism trumps faith. Biden has no principles.

Following is most of the reply by Rigali and Lori (emphasis omitted):

[T]he Senator's claim that the beginning of human life is a "personal and private" matter of religious faith, one which cannot be "imposed" on others, does not reflect the truth of the matter. The Church recognizes that the obligation to protect unborn human life rests on the answer to two questions, neither of which is private or specifically religious.

The first is a biological question: When does a new human life begin? When is there a new living organism of the human species, distinct from mother and father and ready to develop and mature if given a nurturing environment? While ancient thinkers had little verifiable knowledge to help them answer this question, today embryology textbooks confirm that a new human life begins at conception... The Catholic Church does not teach this as a matter of faith; it acknowledges it as a matter of objective fact.

The second is a moral question, with legal and political consequences: Which living members of the human species should be seen as having fundamental human rights, such as a right not to be killed?

The Catholic Church's answer is: Everybody. No human being should be treated as lacking human rights, and we have no business dividing humanity into those who are valuable enough to warrant protection and those who are not. This is not solely a Catholic teaching, but a principle of natural law accessible to all people of good will.

The framers of the Declaration of Independence pointed to the same basic truth by speaking of inalienable rights, bestowed on all members of the human race not by any human power, but by their Creator. Those who hold a narrower and more exclusionary view have the burden of explaining why we should divide humanity into those who have moral values and those who do not and why their particular choice of where to draw that line can be sustained in a pluralistic society.

Such views pose a serious threat to the dignity and rights of other poor and vulnerable members of the human family who need and deserve our respect and protection.

While in past centuries biological knowledge was often inaccurate, modern science leaves no excuse for anyone to deny the humanity of the unborn child. Protection of innocent human life is not an imposition of personal religious conviction but a demand of justice.

Given Biden's concession that Catholic teaching defines the issue, he's powerless to answer this "correction."

But notice the weakness of Rigali and Lori's argument. They claim quite correctly that it is "objective fact" that a fertilized egg is "a new living organism of the human species, distinct from mother and father and ready to develop and mature if given a nurturing environment." (A fertilized egg is not "distinct" from the mother in that it exists wholly inside of her and lives from her nutrients.) But then they make the faith-based jump in claiming that a fertilized egg is a "human being" in the sense of personhood. What is their reason for this jump? It is the "Catholic Church's answer." That's it. There's no factual basis for the claim, no chain of reasoning. Only an appeal to authority. Thus, the pair's claim that their position is not "specifically religious" is patently false. Without religious faith in the "Catholic Church's answer," their case completely falls apart.

As Diana Hsieh and I argue in "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life:"

No one doubts that a fertilized egg is alive, that it contains human DNA, or that it has the potential to develop into a born person (assuming it implants and develops properly in a woman's uterus). The fundamental question is whether these facts are sufficient to establish a fertilized egg as the moral equivalent of an infant, worthy of full legal protections. ...

In fact, the 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.

So is a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus a person with a right to life, like an infant? No. ... From the moment of fertilization to its implantation in the womb a few days later, the embryo consists of a few largely undifferentiated cells. It is invisible to the naked eye. It has no human organs, and no human form. It has no brain, and so no capacity for awareness or feelings. It is far more similar to a few skin cells than an infant. Moreover, it cannot develop into a baby on its own: its survival beyond a few days requires successful implantation in the lining of the woman's uterus. If it fails to do that, it will be flushed from her body without anyone ever knowing of its existence.

Read the rest of the case in the paper.

Both Obama and Biden couch the issue in terms of moral subjectivism. Their religious critics reply with appeals to faith and religious authority. But neither subjectivism nor religious faith can provide an objective basis for moral decisions. The fact that Biden is wrong does not make Rigali and Lori right, or vice versa. Both sides must be rejected in favor of an objective morality rooted in the facts of human life.

Palin and Contraception

Does Sarah Palin approve of all common forms of birth control? David Harsanyi of The Denver Post claims that Senator Barbara Boxer lied about Palin by claiming she is "against birth control.” Harsanyi's claim was no surprise to me, as I'd already read she supports birth control. However, this does not address the issue that some forms of birth control may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, as Diana Hsieh and I discuss in our paper about Amendment 48.

I sent Harsanyi the following note:

Dave,

I knew that Palin was fine with contraception.

However, as Diana and I point out in our paper about 48, some forms of contraception, such as the pill and IUDs, may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. (IUDs also increase the risk of medically-necessary abortions.) Given that you're a journalist with a large paper, you might be able to ask her a) whether she thinks those forms of contraception can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting and b) whether they should therefore be banned.

As much as I appreciate you taking the time to debunk false claims about Palin, you're missing the real story here. Surely a guy who rails against the nanny state would be interested in proposals to ban the birth-control pill. And if Palin indeed approves of those forms of birth control, how does that mesh with her view that personhood begins at the moment of fertilization? Either way, it's an important story.

Please let me know what you come up with.

Thanks, -Ari

To read more about the issue, please see pages 3-5 of the paper. To repeat but one point there, Ortho Tri-Cyclen (registered) claims in its prescription literature that it "reduce[s] the likelihood of implantation."

There is a very real possibility that Palin will be nominating Supreme Court justices at some point; I wouldn't be surprised if she ran for president in eight years, and I wouldn't be too surprised if she ran in four years. And the fact that McCain chose her indicates that he's more than willing to "reach out" to the religious right. (Remember that McCain's ultimate stated goal is "ending abortion.")

It's time for Palin's supporters to stop crying about the left's treatment of Palin -- as bad as that's been -- and start discussing Palin's actual views.

Left Powerless Against Religious Right

Ultimately the left is powerless against the religious right, because the left has no coherent philosophy of its own. This point is illustrated perfectly by a September 7 article in The New York Times.

What is remarkable is that, of the four people currently running for president or vice president, three of the four believe, for reasons of religious faith, that a fertilized egg has the status of a person. "...I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception," Joseph Biden told "Meet the Press." The difference, the Times summarizes, is that Biden "would not impose his personal views on others, and had indeed voted against curtailing abortion rights and against criminalizing abortion."

And Obama's view? "...I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions."

In other words, all four candidates believe the matter is to be decided by religious faith. Two of the candidates take their views to their logical conclusions and call for a total ban on abortion. (Regardless of whether McCain voted to fund abortions in cases of rape and incest, his official, ultimate goal is "ending abortion.")

Biden says the Catholic Church is correct on the matter but then refuses to enact this view in law. Ultimately, who's going to win this contest: one side says outright that abortion is murder and should be banned, while the other side implies abortion is murder yet should not be banned.

Of course the faith-based view depends on obfuscation; as Diana Hsieh and I have pointed out, technically life precedes conception, and regardless that is not the standard for personhood. But Biden lacks the integrity to talk in anything but code on the matter.

The religious right will fare even better against Obama's line. When both sides claim the matter is properly theological in nature, and one side claims to know the theological answer while the other side claims ignorance, the first side will maintain the upper hand.

The left's powerlessness against the religious right mirrors the right's powerlessness against the welfare-statist left. When McCain talks about sacrifice and serving something "greater than yourself," he cannot withstand calls to sacrifice people to the "greater" cause of the national "welfare."

While McCain would sacrifice the interests of couples to fertilized eggs, Obama would sacrifice producers to others' "welfare." What neither left nor right upholds today is the principle that each individual has the right to his own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Did Dobson Break Vow to God?

The AP reports that eight members of American Right to Life Action (ARLA) were "escorted" from the premises of Focus on the Family. But isn't Dobson the Grand Poobah of the religious right? What's going on?

ARLA explains:

American RTL Action, the political 527 group, is exposing Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson for violating his public pledge in which he invoked the name of God, by declaring that he is voting for John McCain. ARTL members will protest Dr. Dobson at his headquarters at 8655 Explorer Drive in Colorado Springs on Thur. Sept. 4, beginning at 7:45 a.m.

On April 28, 1990 at the Washington D.C. Rally for Life on video and to hundreds of thousands of Christians, Dr. Dobson stated, "I want to give a pledge to you on a political level... I have determined that for the rest of my life, however long God lets me live on this earth, I will never cast one vote for any man or woman who would kill one innocent baby." (See pledge video below [at the linked page].) James Dobson has endorsed John McCain for president, a Republican who has recently voted to authorize funding to kill some children by surgical abortion.

American RTL Action calls upon Jim Daly, the president of Focus, to take down the video of Dr. Dobson's pledge which still plays for tourists at their Welcome Center. Dr. Dobson has broken the public oath which he repeated over a period of years including on his Focus on the Family radio program in March of 1995 saying, "I am committed never again to cast a vote for a politician who would kill one innocent baby," referring to the rape and incest 'exceptions,' "which are a window to the soul of a 'pro-life' candidate," said ARTL Action president Steve Curtis.

"John McCain funds the killing of countless children," said the group's director of research Darrell Birkey, "for example by voting to allocate monies on Oct. 27, 2005 for tax-funded surgical abortion if the baby's father is a criminal, that is, a rapist." The official Senate.gov site documents McCain's Yea vote on the Health and Human Services Appropriations Public Law 109-149 and the Government Printing Office documents that McCain's vote authorized funding for surgical abortion to kill an unborn child whose father is a criminal as the law states, SEC. 507. (a) "funds are appropriated in this Act" that includes coverage of abortion, SEC. 508. (a) (1) "if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest."

[[Outside brackets in original:] Of course National RTL misleads Christians on Republican candidates by ignoring their pro-abortion votes; and they claim that McCain: "Voted consistently against federal funding of abortion," by ignoring his votes that funded abortion; funded dissecting the tiniest children; gave millions to Planned Parenthood; etc. A NRTL 100% rating is a near-certain indicator that a Republican is pro-choice with exceptions.]

"Dr. Dobson is violating the pledge he took before God," said Birkey, "by voting for John McCain. Both the Sarah Palin distraction, and the candidate's rhetoric to Rick Warren claiming he believes that human rights begin at conception, are belied by John McCain's long tolerance of chemical abortifacients and funding of the dissection of the tiniest embryonic boys and girls."

"In violating his 1990 pledge in which he invoked the name of God, Dr. Dobson has lost the moral authority to speak for Christians," said Curtis. "He can speak for Republicans who do not fear God, but he cannot speak for the Body of Christ. Jim Daly, please remove that video of Dr. Dobson's broken pledge from the Focus on the Family Welcome Center; you dishonor the Lord as you portray Dr. Dobson as principled and as keeping his oath before God."

Last week ARTL Action unfurled the massive Sheets Of Shame abortion protest sign on a mountain overlooking the DNC in Denver. "American RTL will expose both Republican and Democratic politicians who advocate the killing of unborn children," said Curtis, who is also a former chairman of the Colorado Republican Party. And ARTL Action reminds Dr. Dobson that Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount warned His followers against invoking God's name in an oath, and regardless, forbade them from breaking their word. In the New Testament the apostle James wrote, "Do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No,' lest you fall into judgment."

John McCain repeatedly votes to give millions of dollars to foreign and domestic abortion providers including Planned Parenthood. One week after pro-abortion Rudi Giuliani dropped out of the primary race, Republicans for Choice endorsed John McCain. And his Sanctity of Life campaign webpage doesn't even mention the words conception, rape, incest, fertilization, nor the phrase human life amendment. Further, McCain refused to co-sponsor U.S. Senator Roger Wicker's life-saving S.3111 and refuses to endorse Colorado's historic Personhood amendment initiative which is on their statewide November ballot. "McCain is as Jesus warned in Matthew 7:15," said Birkey, "a wolf in sheep's clothing, manipulating Christians into voting for someone who continues to kill the innocent preborn."

American RTL Action has a test for a Christian to rank his own loyalty to God as compared to Republican politics. A believer need only consider whether he approves of Dr. Dobson violating the pledge he made before God to increase the chance of victory for a Republican in November. As Jesus said, "No man can have two masters," yet Focus on the Family leads Christians to worship the Republican Party as an idol. American Right To Life Action urges everyone, please trust and obey God above all.

Please read this letter from Focus on the Family
which admits that Dr. Dobson has compromised on the pledge he made before God and then, sadly, tries to justify that blatant sin.

The first thing to notice (other than the fact that the members of ARLA are crazy) is that Dobson didn't actually make a vow to God, as the headline over the AP article claims. (If he had, I don't regard the breaking of a pledge to an imaginary being as quite as bad as breaking a pledge to a real person.) So Dobson's support of McCain and Palin, both of whom oppose abortion, when their opponent is hesitantly pro-choice, is a "blatant sin," according to ARLA. Talk about over the top. (I agree that Dobson has done wrong, but his fault is pushing faith-based politics, including abortion bans.)

ARLA wants to ban abortion from the moment of conception, even in cases of rape or incest.

Pay attention, people! The religious right is serious about banning abortion. Deadly serious.

"Pro-Life As Any Candidate Can Be"

Sarah Palin, John McCain's running mate, is as "pro-life as any candidate can be," Fox News reports. However, as Diana Hsieh and I have pointed out, the allegedly "pro-life" position, which would grant full legal rights to fertilized eggs for reasons of religious faith, is in fact profoundly anti-life. I didn't need any additional reasons not to vote for McCain, but his selection of Palin reaffirms some of the reasons I've already given.

The religious right is ecstatic, as The New York Times reports:

Social conservatives were relieved and highly pleased.

"They're beyond ecstatic," said Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition. "This is a home run. She is a reformer governor who is solidly pro-life and a person of deep Christian faith. And she is really one of the bright shining new stars in the Republican firmament."

Ms. Palin is known to conservatives for choosing not to have an abortion after learning two years ago that she was carrying a child with Down's syndrome. "It is almost impossible to exaggerate how important that is to the conservative faith community," Mr. Reed said.

Obviously, a Down's baby is precious to his mother and has the same legal rights as anyone else. The choice properly belongs to the woman whether to bring a fetus with Down's to term. However, given the severe problems associated with the disease, and the possibility of detecting it early in a pregnancy with modern medicine, certainly it is perfectly moral for a woman to get an abortion under such tragic circumstances. But apparently the religious right grants Palin some sort of special moral status for having a Down's baby, as though tragedy and suffering itself were the mark of goodness and political competence.

I don't think McCain's pick is going to do what he hopes it will do. If anything, it will drive Hillary's supporters to more loyal support of Obama. And it will only further alienate independents and secularist Republicans, who are growing increasingly weary of faith-based politics.

How to Think Like an Apologist

A few days ago, I pointed out that many or most fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterus and die naturally. Thus, according to the Christian view that God controls the universe, God is the ultimate abortionist.

A fellow named Darrell Birkey replied, "So you slander God, blaming him for miscarriages and failures for the fertilized egg to implant in the womb. God designed the procreation process, but He doesn't cause miscarriages,etc. You slander and demean God to claim that he does."

I confess to be being disappointed with Birkey's reply; I was sort of hoping he'd, you know, offer some sort of argument to back up his position. If I were a Christian apologist, I might argue something along these lines:

It is true that God controls the universe and whether an egg fertilizes and implants in the uterus. However, when God allows a fertilized egg not to implant, that is not the equivalent of an abortion. God knows before-hand whether he's going to allow an egg to implant, and he imbues only those fertilized eggs destined for implantation with a soul. Thus, a fertilized egg that God allows to die does not have the moral status of a fertilized egg that the woman willfully aborts.

Yes, God also knows before-hand whether the mother is going to abort. However, this remains a matter of free choice for the woman. A woman is bound to obey the will of God. It is impossible for the woman to know which fertilized egg God intends to imbue with a soul. Thus, it is wrong for a woman to take any action with the intention of blocking a fertilized egg from implanting in her uterus.

But why does God allow some fertilized eggs to die in the first place? Why didn't he create us such that all fertilized eggs implant in the uterus and successfully grow to live babies? Why do fertilized eggs fail to implant or sometimes die after they have implanted? God's plan for the universe is too grand for us lowly mortals to fully comprehend. However, the biological facts do offer us a wonderful opportunity to live our faith in God. Some women are tempted to think that the fertilized egg she kills is the same as a fertilized egg that God allows to die. But the woman properly understands that God is in charge, and she must let his will decide the matter.

And here is my brief reply to this apologist nonsense.

First, there is no God, no proof of God, and no mystical soul with which God imbues a fertilized egg. Thus, there is no reason to think that one fertilized egg is different from any other, morally speaking. The final paragraph appeals to human ignorance, as though that resolves any paradox with the religion. Finally, if God did exist, it would be a bit nasty of him to allow some fertilized eggs to die merely so that women could face temptation to prevent implantation or get an abortion.

If anybody else has a better explanation for why God would kill more fertilized eggs than all abortion doctors combined, I'd love to hear it.

Army of God

The Colorado Independent has published a story by Wendy Norris discussing the colorful backgrounds of some of the supporters of Amendment 48.

The article reports, for example, that Dr. George Maloof "Signed American Life League's petition that saving the life of the mother is never an excuse for abortion." I was curious, so I looked it up. Here is the relevant statement:

I agree that there is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn child's life need be intentionally destroyed by procured abortion for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either.

As I've written, this may allow just a little bit of wiggle room; perhaps a doctor supposedly can remove an embryo without "intentionally" killing it, even though the doctor knows full well it will die. The more likely scenario, though, is that the doctor will wait until the embryo dies, or the mother is absolutely on her death bed, before taking any action. Of course for some women it will be too late. So, yes, these people believe crazy things.

However, I don't think the Independent's story will do quite what the author thinks. The main doctor it discusses doesn't even live in Colorado. I'm quite certain that, with minimal effort, I could find crazy people who endorse causes close to Wendy Norris's heart.

Everything has to be grand conspiracy for the left. That's because, I think, the left doesn't have much of a positive philosophy to offer. I mean, it has Marx, but it turns out that Marx was wrong about practically everything. So the left, by routine now, just tries to tie everything it doesn't like to some crazy or shady person or group, as though that were a substitute for an actual argument.

Still, this sort of story has value, if taken in its appropriate context.

More Anti-Abortion Insanity

While many in the country want some restrictions on abortion, the few consistent opponents of abortion want to ban it across the board. The only possible exception might be an extreme risk to the mother's life (because then the fetus is at risk, too). Here's what one Christian has to say on the matter:

The best way to handle it legally is to attempt to protect both mother and fetus from being deprived of life without due process. Because of the emergency nature of most life-threatening pregnancies, the doctor would have to make a call that ending the pregnancy (and therefore, if the fetus is too young to survive, the life of the fetus), just as a policeman often must make the decion that a suspect has to be shot dead to protect the public.

The way to handle these emergencies isn't to grant broad judgment to doctors (or cops) to just kill people at their descretion; rather, it is to allow for the prosecutor to not pursue the case if it appears that the doctor (or cop) proceeded on good faith, believing that such a drastic measure as killing was necessary to protect the innocent life of the mother (or public).

Notice the high bar here: if an abortion is "necessary" to protect the "life of the mother," then it may proceed. Presumably, that means that, without an abortion, the mother certainly would die. Unfortunately, in the real world, risks often are less than 100 percent, and doctors rarely are able to perfectly anticipate risks. By the standard mentioned, anytime the risk to the mother were not 100 percent, the doctor would be wading into legal trouble by offering an abortion. Does that mean that, with an 80 percent risk of death to the mother, the doctor may not operate?

Even if the doctor believes that the mother's death is a certainty without an abortion, a prosecutor may disagree. Could a prosecutor find any anti-abortion doctor anywhere who would testify that the mother's life might possibly have been saved? In many or most cases, yes. Medicine is not a science of exactly calculated risks. It is art that often involves educated guesses.

The writer cited does not explain, in detail, how the program would be carried out (because there is no way to do so). What is obvious, though, is that the policy described would result in the deaths of women. That is considered by some to be the "pro-life" position.

"Prolifers" Advocate Pain and Death for Women

The position of the Association of Prolife Physicians speaks for itself:

We must respond to all tragic circumstances of pregnancy from the unshakeable foundation of two indisputable premises: human life begins at conception, and it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. The unborn child's right to life and liberty is given by his or her Creator, not by his or her parents or by the state. ... It is never right to intentionally kill an innocent person, even if it does relieve another's emotional or physical suffering. ...

We find it extremely unfortunate that many pro-lifers have regarded the health of the mother to be a consideration in whether or not she should have the right to terminate the life of her pre-born baby. ... To intentionally kill or condone the intentional killing of one innocent human being precludes one from being considered 'pro-life' at all. A murderer of one person is not any less a murderer if he allows thousands to live, nor if he saves thousands from dying!

Contemplate that for a moment. This allegedly "pro-life" position would subject women to agonizing physical suffering and the risk of death to maintain the faith-based fantasy that a fertilized egg is a person.

God: The Ultimate Abortionist

Amendment 48 would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution. The presumption behind this initiative is that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul, so it's immoral for a woman to choose to abort it. There's just one little problem with this view; as Pamela White writes in her outstanding overview of the implications of 48:

[A]bout 30 to 70 percent of the time, the fertilized egg fails to implant and is flushed from the woman's body during her next menstrual period without her ever knowing about it. This is not considered a miscarriage because the egg never implanted and never initiated the physical changes of pregnancy.

Those who want to ban all abortions and the birth-control pill (which prevents implantation of a fertilized egg) believe that it's God's will whether a sperm enters an egg and the egg implants. In other words, according to the assumptions of the Amendment 48 crowd, God commits abortion in 30-70 percent of all cases of fertilization.

"Abortionist" is the smear term used by anti-abortion zealots against doctors who perform abortions. But God is the ultimate abortionist, having performed (I'm guessing) millions of times more abortions than all "abortionist" doctors combined. Anti-abortion zealots routinely refer to abortion as a "holocaust." Then what is it that God is perpetrating?

This points to a deeper problem with this sort of theology. The point of ethics, so goes this line of thought, is to conform our will to God's will. The reason not to murder is that God said so. But if God says to kill your own son, then it would be immoral to refuse. Similarly, God allegedly says that having an abortion is wrong. But if God wants to abort 30-70 percent of all fertilized eggs, then that's perfectly fine. What matters is conformity to God's will, in this view.

This points to the ultimate irony of the anti-abortion crusade. A big part of that movement is a criticism of moral subjectivism at the personal level. But barely beneath the surface of these religious beliefs is moral subjectivism at the supernatural level. Morality is what God says it is, end of story.

What's needed is neither personal subjectivism nor supernatural subjectivism, but an objective morality rooted in the facts of human life.

Personhood and DIM

A collection of letters published by The Denver Post address Colorado's ballot initiative that seeks to define a fertilized egg as a person (Amendment 48). The thee letters perfectly illustrate an idea of Leonard Peikoff: the three basic approaches to fundamental ideas are Disintegration, Misintegration, and Integration (or DIM, but I'm rearranging the terms to fit the letters).

Martin Voelker writes, "This impossibility to decide doctrinal merits is why government must remain neutral, as indeed our secular Constitution prescribes." While it is true that religions have incompatible tenets, that is not a primary consideration with respect to 48. Voelker is essentially invoking skepticism: we cannot know, so we shouldn't make laws about things about which people are bound to disagree.

Lamar Taylor writes, "Those of us who support the 'personhood' amendment are pro-life. We believe that human life begins at conception." "We believe." While obviously a fertilized egg (as well as a pre-fertilized egg) is both alive and human in the sense of containing human DNA, it is not a human person, which is the letter writer's point. The letter writer offers no argument to back up the assertion that a fertilized egg is a person; "we believe" suffices. This is a symptom of Misintegration, or building a cohesive philosophy around a fundamentally mystical focus. The only argument that has ever been put forward that a fertilized egg is a person is that God said so.

Finally (as I've noted previously), Diana Hsieh writes:

A woman's fundamental right to control her own body, including her right to terminate or sustain a pregnancy, should not depend on majority vote. This would violate that right in spades, based on the fantasy that an embryo is equal to an infant. It would force a woman to provide life support to any fertilized egg -- even at the risk of her life and health and even if ruinous to her goals and dreams. It would make actual persons -- any woman capable of bearing children, plus her husband or boyfriend -- slaves to merely potential persons. That kind of moral evil has no place in a modern society...

Hsieh accounts for the real biological differences between a fertilized egg and a person. Hsieh's invocation of rights points not to some mystical entity but to the requirements of human life and flourishing. Hsieh briefly counters the approaches of both Disintegration and Misintegration. While obviously she can only skim the surface in a short letter, Hsieh's deeper theme is that reason and reality must trump both faith and skepticism.

South Dakota Raises Abortion Hurdles

As the Associated Press reports, a South Dakota law may legally be enforced requiring doctors to tell woman that an abortion "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." The AP elsewhere notes that the state's attorney general now plans to enforce the law. U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier still must issue a ruling on the law; the debate was whether it could be enforced while under challenge.

What I take to be the relevant statute is reproduced below.

Obviously the law is intended to create onerous restrictions on abortion and come between doctors and their patients. The law micromanages doctors and violates their rights of contract and expression. The law also treats women as mindless dolts who must be parented by the state if they are to make "correct" decisions. Obviously the law is biased toward forcing doctors to provide propaganda against abortion, outside the context of the overall best decision for the woman, that presumably could generate endless litigation against doctors who provide the "wrong" sort of information.

Most importantly, the law deceptively claims that a fetus is "a... living human being" in the sense of being a person. The law thus relies on a gross equivocation between "human" in the sense of containing human DNA, as every cell in our bodies do, and "human" in the sense of being a physically separate and independent human person, which a fetus most certainly is not.

34-23A-10.1. (Delay in implementation or finding of unconstitutionality, see note at end of section) Voluntary and informed consent required--Medical emergency exception--Information provided. No abortion may be performed unless the physician first obtains a voluntary and informed written consent of the pregnant woman upon whom the physician intends to perform the abortion, unless the physician determines that obtaining an informed consent is impossible due to a medical emergency and further determines that delaying in performing the procedure until an informed consent can be obtained from the pregnant woman or her next of kin in accordance with chapter 34- 12C is impossible due to the medical emergency, which determinations shall then be documented in the medical records of the patient. A consent to an abortion is not voluntary and informed, unless, in addition to any other information that must be disclosed under the common law doctrine, the physician provides that pregnant woman with the following information:
(1) A statement in writing providing the following information:
(a) The name of the physician who will perform the abortion;
(b) That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
(c) That the pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;
(d) That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated;
(e) A description of all known medical risks of the procedure and statistically significant risk factors to which the pregnant woman would be subjected, including:
(i) Depression and related psychological distress;
(ii) Increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide;
(iii) A statement setting forth an accurate rate of deaths due to abortions, including all deaths in which the abortion procedure was a substantial contributing factor;
(iv) All other known medical risks to the physical health of the woman, including the risk of infection, hemorrhage, danger to subsequent pregnancies, and infertility;
(f) The probable gestational age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed, and a scientifically accurate statement describing the development of the unborn child at that age; and
(g) The statistically significant medical risks associated with carrying her child to term compared to undergoing an induced abortion.
The disclosures set forth above shall be provided to the pregnant woman in writing and in person no later than two hours before the procedure is to be performed. The physician shall ensure that the pregnant woman signs each page of the written disclosure with the certification that she has read and understands all of the disclosures, prior to the patient signing a consent for the procedure. If the pregnant woman asks for a clarification or explanation of any particular disclosure, or asks any other question about a matter of significance to her, the explanation or answer shall be made in writing and be given to the pregnant woman before signing a consent for the procedure and shall be made part of the permanent medical record of the patient;
(2) A statement by telephone or in person, by the physician who is to perform the abortion, or by the referring physician, or by an agent of both, at least twenty-four hours before the abortion, providing the following information:
(a) That medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth, and
neonatal care;
(b) That the father of the unborn child is legally responsible to provide financial support for her child following birth, and that this legal obligation of the father exists in all instances, even in instances in which the father has offered to pay for the abortion;
(c) The name, address, and telephone number of a pregnancy help center in reasonable proximity of the abortion facility where the abortion will be performed; and
(d) That she has a right to review all of the material and information described in § 34- 23A-1, §§ 34-23A-1.2 to 34-23A-1.7, inclusive, § 34-23A-10.1, and § 34-23A- 10.3, as well as the printed materials described in § 34-23A-10.3, and the website described in § 34-23A-10.4. The physician or the physician's agent shall inform the pregnant woman, orally or in writing, that the materials have been provided by the State of South Dakota at no charge to the pregnant woman. If the pregnant woman indicates, at any time, that she wants to review any of the materials described, such disclosures shall be either given to her at least twenty-four hours before the abortion or mailed to her at least seventy-two hours before the abortion by certified mail, restricted delivery to addressee, which means the postal employee can only deliver the mail to the addressee;
Prior to the pregnant woman signing a consent to the abortion, she shall sign a written statement that indicates that the requirements of this section have been complied with. Prior to the performance of the abortion, the physician who is to perform the abortion shall receive a copy of the written disclosure documents required by this section, and shall certify in writing that all of the information described in those subdivisions has been provided to the pregnant woman, that the physician is, to the best of his or her ability, satisfied that the pregnant woman has read the materials which are required to be disclosed, and that the physician believes she understands the information imparted. (SL 2005, ch 186, §§ 10 and 11 provide: "Section 10. If any court of law enjoins, suspends, or delays the implementation of the provisions of section 7 of this Act, the provisions of § 34-23A-10.1, as of June 30, 2005, are effective during such injunction, suspension, or delayed implementation." "Section 11. If any court of law finds any provisions of section 7 of this Act to be unconstitutional, the other provisions of section 7 are severable. If any court of law finds the provisions of section 7 of this Act to be entirely or substantially unconstitutional, the provisions of § 34-23A-10.1, as of June 30, 2005, are immediately reeffective.")
Source: SL 1980, ch 245, § 1; SL 1993, ch 249, § 4; SL 2003, ch 185, § 2; SL 2005, ch 186, § 7.

McCain's Evangelical Problem

Bill Bunkley is concerned that, by failing to rally his religious-right base, McCain risks leaving them at home on election day. Obama, on the other hand, is actively pursuing evangelical voters, Bunkley notes.

But there is a little problem with Bunkley's analysis. Obama is pro-choice, while McCain holds "ending abortion" as his ultimate goal. Thus, while Obama, who has openly endorsed the separation of church and state, can court evangelicals without scaring the hell out of everybody else, McCain cannot.

A recent poll asked people whether they believe "Abortion should be legal and solely up to the woman to decide." The percent in agreement is 35 for evangelicals, 60 for "Mainline Protestants," and 51 for Catholics.

Meanwhile, Bunkley cites a report from Pew indicating, "White evangelical Protestants... [make] up over one-third of those who identify with the GOP and vote for its candidates."

In other words, McCain can pander to the religious-right third of his base and (further) alienate the "libertarian" right and most independents, while Obama can court the Christian vote -- including the third of evangelicals who support legal abortion -- without alienating anybody.

The Republican Party is stuck. It can't win with the religious right, and perhaps it can't win without it (especially with candidates who also trash the First Amendment and call for sacrifice to the collective). As I've suggested, the only way forward I can see is a new coalition of civil libertarians of the classic left and modern right, free marketeers (of the Austrian and Chicago schools), and free traders of the left. Basically, we need a new liberty coalition.

The Faith-Based Politics of Abortion

A recent spat between Barack Obama and James Dobson offers a good opportunity to further reply to Colorado Right to Life and Bob Kyffin on abortion.

Here's what Barack Obama said on June 28, 2006, in his "Call to Renewal" address:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

I have expressed the same view on this web page. Note that Obama in fact holds a "pro-choice position."

The problem is that nobody has made an effective, non-religious argument for banning abortion. Instead, Colorado Right to Life (and the Republican candidates who signed its questionnaire) explicitly invoke God's will as the foundation of their position.

Now Dobson of Focus on the Family has attacked Obama's stance, saying, according to the AP, "Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies? What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."

Notably, Dobson is misrepresenting Obama's position. Obama did not claim that people must conform their views to what "everybody agrees" is correct; instead, he said people should make "universal" arguments "subject to argument, and amenable to reason."

Dobson's dilemma is that no reasonable argument supports the definition of a fertilized egg as a person or the prohibition of abortion. Thus, his only option is to "evoke God's will."

As if to further illustrate the point, Bob Kyffin sent in a reply to my criticism of his statements (stemming from my critique of Colorado Right to Life). Kyffin attempts to make a universal, reasonable argument in favor of banning abortion, but his argument completely fails.

Kyffin argues that an embryo, and even a feritlized egg, is a person because, first, "life begins at conception," and, second, a fertilized egg has "its own DNA" that dictates many of the egg's future traits, if brought to term.

Life not only begins at conception but precedes conception. Both the sperm and egg are living human entities. But not all living human entities are people. As I've mentioned, every cell in our bodies is a living human entity. Every cell is alive, and every cell contains human DNA. Yet Kyffin would hardly argue that we're committing mass murder every time we take a shower and exfoliate thousands of living, human cells.

Obviously, the mere fact that a fertilized egg contains human DNA does not qualify it for personhood for the same basic reason.

The difference that Kyffin seems to be going for, then, is that a fertilized egg, unlike a lone sperm or egg cell or a skin cell, has the capacity, if attached in a specific way to a healthy female uterus, to develop into an embryo, then a fetus, and finally into a born human being (a person). (We'll leave aside the complication that it's now possible to develop a new, independent human being from the DNA of any living human cell.)

But the fact that a fertilized egg has the capacity (in a certain environment) to develop into a person does not imply that the fertilized egg is itself a person. A fertilized egg has none of the relevant features of personhood, other than human DNA. It has no organs, cannot survive independently, etc. It is utter lunacy to call a fertilized egg a person. Kyffin might as well argue that an oak tree is a house, a field of grass a beef steak, or a silk worm a fine suit, because in each case the first thing has the capacity to develop into the second.

A necessary condition for personhood is the ability to survive independently, without any direct nourishment from the body of another. A newborn baby obviously needs a caregiver to provide food, warmth, etc. But a newborn baby is dramatically different than a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus, in that the newborn baby is an independent entity that will continue to live on its own if left by itself. A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus physically cannot leave the mother without physical removal, and, until lates stages, if left on its own it will quickly die. A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus is radically dependent on its mother's physical body, whereas a newborn is not.

This radical, physical dependency is a large part of the reason why a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have the rights of personhood. One implication of this is that a pregnant woman has the right to get an abortion. As I've said, a woman who has decided to get an abortion is morally bound to get it in the early term whenever feasible. However, even in very-late term pregnancies, in any conflict between the safety of the mother and the safety of the fetus, the mother has every moral right to protect her own life. (She is also properly free to accept increased risk to herself in order to protect the fetus.)

Those who oppose abortion typically invoke the horrors of gratuitous, late-term abortions in order to advocate the prohibition of abortion even of a fertilized egg. But gratuitous, late-term abortions are practically non-existent. Practically all abortions occur in the early terms.

For what it's worth, here's what Roe v. Wade has to say on the matter: "State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

Generally, I oppose restrictions even for late-term abortions, because the practical effect would be to intimidate doctors with zealous prosecution, thereby interfering with their considerations of the "life or health of the mother."

The essential debate, though, is over abortion in the early terms. Kyffin and Colorado Right to Life (CRTL) hold that a fertilized egg is a person and therefore should be granted full rights.

As I have argued, one obvious implication of the view that a fertilized egg is a person is that doctors would be legally required (or at least bullied) into sacrificing the lives of some women. CRTL's position is thus morally abhorrent.

At some level, CRTL seems to be aware that its position is horrific, or at least at odds with the common decency of most people. And so CRTL has tried to create an escape clause. As I've explained:

CRTL uses the same sleight of rhetoric. Recall that the position of CRTL is that "It is... wrong... to kill the baby to save the mother." CRTL opposes "the intentional killing of the unborn child, for the life of the mother." CRTL states, "When the mother's life is seriously threatened by a pregnancy, of course it is morally justified to deliver the baby but not if the intention is to kill the baby. ... If the baby dies, it is a tragedy; if the baby is intentionally killed, it is murder."

CRTL's position doesn't hold up for early-term pregnancies. "Delivering" an unformed embryo will kill it. Yet the only way that CRTL can preserve its stance that a fertilized egg is a person and still allow doctors to save the life of the mother is to pretend that "delivery" of an unformed embryo to death is somehow different than intentionally killing it. ...

So long as CRTL clings to the faith-based fantasy that a fertilized egg is a person, the group has only two paths. Either it can openly acknowledge that it would sometimes sacrifice the lives of women, or it can allow women to get abortions whenever they see any risk to their lives. This second path, however, is inconsistent with CRTL's position that "It is... wrong... to kill the baby to save the mother."

CRTL's escape clause doesn't work. If a doctor removes an embryo, the embryo will certainly die. (I'm leaving aside test-tube scenarios.) Any early-term abortion, for whatever reason, is an intentional act that necessarily results in the death of the embryo.

Yet Kyffin tries to exploit the same absurd escape clause:

...CRTL says, "if the baby dies, it is a tragedy; if the baby is intentionally killed, it is murder." The result may be the same. The intent is clearly different. There is a distinct and critical difference between the unfortunate death of a baby whose life could not be saved, in the course of protecting the mother, and the situation where a doctor goes in and intentionally kills the baby when it is not necessary. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, there is a (presumably) 0% chance of the baby surviving, and that is unfortunate. And yet, CRTL would support a surgery to protect the mother, so long as there is no malicious intent in the doctor’s mind to intentionally kill the baby. ... Since the baby needs the mother to survive, then of course CRTL would support taking such actions to preserve her life, even if it may mean the death of the baby...

I note my objection to referring to a fertilized egg or undeveloped embryo as a "baby," as the term wrongly implies personhood. Also, Kyffin is not, so far as I am aware, an authorized spokesperson for CRTL, so I will treat his comments as one possible interpretation of CRTL's stated positions.

Kyffin's intentionality argument is absurd (and could be taken as a reductio ad absurdum of his premise that a fertilized egg is a person). True, intention is an element of a criminal act. For example, one who intentionally fires a bullet into an innocent person is a murderer, while one who thoughtlessly fires a bullet over a crowd and strikes an innocent party has committed manslaughter but not (intentional) murder. But the idea that a doctor might remove a fertilized egg "to protect the mother," without having the intention to kill the fertilized egg, is laughable.

Here's an analogy. Let's say one of the Inquisition's torturers were brought up on charges according to modern law. If the torturer said, "Look, I didn't have the intention of inflicting pain on the victim; I had only the intention of saving the victim's soul, as well as the souls of observers," that obviously wouldn't fly. The pain was an obvious and necessary result of the torture; it was intentional. According to CRTL's premise that a fertilized egg is a person, a doctor who removes a fertilized egg, causing its death but not "intending" its death, should be just as guilty as the torturer. Given that CRTL's premise is ridiculous, the doctor is morally blameless.

I wish to stress that my case for legal abortion does not rest upon the fact that, if a fertilized egg were legally defined as a person and given full legal protection as such, the result would be the deaths of innocent women. It is true that CRTL's policies, if fully enforced, would kill women. However, even if by some stroke of a magic wand this were not the case, abortion should still remain legal, based on a woman's right to control her body. However, the fact that CRTL's policy would kill women, coupled with the fact that CRTL attempts to evade this fact, helps to demonstrate the weakness of CRTL's case.

There is no reason, no argument, no universal moral case that supports the notion that a fertilized egg is a person. The contrary claim can come only from faith, the belief that God said so. Such faith-based legal policies have no place in a free society.

Reply to Kyffin on Abortion

Yesterday I strongly criticized Colorado Right to Life (CRTL) for promoting the prohibition of abortion even of fertilized eggs and even in cases of rape and risk to the life of the mother.

Bob Kyffin offered several arguments in reply. However, he did not address the central point: a fertilized egg is not a person, as CRTL claims. Kyffin states:

Is there ever a case where slavery should be allowed? Ever a case when a Jew should be allowed to be killed? Never.

And there should never be a reason to take the life of an innocent human being...

Nobody doubts the evils of slavery or murder. But a fertilized egg is just not a human being (a person). It is alive, and it has human DNA, but so does every cell in our bodies. It is a potential human being, but a potential person is not a person.

The overwhelming majority of abortions occur in early stages of pregnancy, when the embryo is barely developed and still only a potential human person. As a matter of ethics, women who get abortions should do so in the early stages whenever feasible. (As a matter of ethics, people should have sex responsibly and take reasonable steps to avoid unwanted pregnancy.) Individual rights apply only to actual people, individuals who live a "biologically independent existence" (in Diana Hsieh's words.)

As a matter of rights, women have the right to get an abortion for whatever reason they deem fit. This is true even if some women get abortions for bad reasons or come to regret them. Similarly, women have the right to decide their sexual partners, even if some have sex for bad reasons or come to regret it.

A fertilized egg is not a person. An embryo is not a person. Neither Kyffin nor CRTL has offered any reason for thinking otherwise, beyond the pseudo-reason that God allegedly said so.

In his more specific arguments, Kyffin begins by addressing risks to the life of the mother:

They [CRTL] say you don't kill a baby to save the mother because it's a truism. It's never medically necessary to take active measures to kill the baby in order to preserve the mother's life. That's an abortionist's lie, and a popularly believed myth.

A Caesarian section is one of the safest and quickest medical procedures that exists. It takes 5 minutes, and if the baby is capable of living outside the womb, then she will live.

A late-term abortion, on the other hand, takes many hours, at the very least, and often takes days. If a woman's life is in danger, a doctor would be criminally incompetent to take the time to kill the baby before removing her, rather than simply delivering the baby alive.

A doctor should always try to save the life of the baby and the mother -- to do anything else is negligent.

Kyffin claims that in medical emergencies the interests of the mother and fetus usually coincide. This I do not doubt. However, it is not always the case, and unexpected emergencies late in pregnancy are not the only relevant cases. Doctors may know very early in the pregnancy that the mother would risk her life by carrying the embryo to term. Last November, I cited the case of a woman who died following an ectopic pregnancy. A woman might have any number of medical conditions that make pregnancy dangerous.

Kyffin fudges his case when he forbids only "active measures to kill the baby," adding that "if the baby is capable of living outside the womb, then she will live." That's a fairly big "if." Obviously, if a doctor removes an (early-stage) embryo, it's going to die. Kyffin's trick is to define "active measures" so narrowly that some cases of intentionally killing the embryo are discounted.

CRTL uses the same sleight of rhetoric. Recall that the position of CRTL is that "It is... wrong... to kill the baby to save the mother." CRTL opposes "the intentional killing of the unborn child, for the life of the mother." CRTL states, "When the mother's life is seriously threatened by a pregnancy, of course it is morally justified to deliver the baby but not if the intention is to kill the baby. ... If the baby dies, it is a tragedy; if the baby is intentionally killed, it is murder."

CRTL's position doesn't hold up for early-term pregnancies. "Delivering" an unformed embryo will kill it. Yet the only way that CRTL can preserve its stance that a fertilized egg is a person and still allow doctors to save the life of the mother is to pretend that "delivery" of an unformed embryo to death is somehow different than intentionally killing it.

In practice, though, medicine is often an art of managing risks. In many cases, a pregnancy will endanger the life of the mother somewhat. Only a certain fraction of dangerous pregnancies will result in the death of the mother. To flesh out its position, then, CRTL needs to specify when it's acceptable to risk the life of the mother. If the mother has a 40 percent chance of dying and a 60 percent chance of carrying the embryo to term, must the government force the woman and her doctor to continue the pregnancy?

So long as CRTL clings to the faith-based fantasy that a fertilized egg is a person, the group has only two paths. Either it can openly acknowledge that it would sometimes sacrifice the lives of women, or it can allow women to get abortions whenever they see any risk to their lives. This second path, however, is inconsistent with CRTL's position that "It is... wrong... to kill the baby to save the mother." And the first path is horrific.

Next Kyffin addresses the issue of rape:

On the subject of rape babies, surveys show that most victims of rape or incest want to keep their babies. The ones who don't keep their baby often regret it for the rest of their lives. An abortion simply re-victimizes the young girl.

Abortion for rape and incest also hides the crime from authorities (abortionists NEVER report underage pregnancies, even when they suspect rape -- this is WELL documented). The rapist is free to rape the same girl again, and again, without his wife (the girl's mother) or whoever else knowing about it.

The issue of documentation and protection of underage victims is distinct from the issue of abortion (though I doubt Kyffin's claim that abortion clinics "never" report rapes to the police). Obviously the issue is wider than underage pregnancy (though I don't know what percentage of pregnancies caused by rape involve minors).

Regardless of what the surveys say, the matter is not properly up for vote. Even if "most" women want to carry embryos resulting from rape to term, some do not, and they have the right to get an abortion. I do not doubt that many women regret getting an abortion, just as many do not, and many would have regretted not getting an abortion. But that's beside the point. It's the government's job to protect people's rights -- in this case, the rights of women -- not play psychoanalyst and protect people from their own choices as evaluated by the religious right. (The broader point is that the government should fight rape.) Besides, according to CRTL's premises, even if all raped women who became pregnant wanted to get an abortion and none regretted it, CRTL would still wish to prohibit all abortions, so Kyffin's argument seems misplaced.

Nothing Kyffin has written mitigates the fact that CRTL wants to grant a fertilized egg the full legal rights of a person, force women to bring pregnancies to term against their will, prohibit valuable medical research, force women to have the babies of rapists, and sacrifice the lives of some unwilling women in order to save embryos. Those who actually respect life must reject CRTL's faith-based politics.

Colorado Right to Death

The ludicrously named Colorado Right to Life (CRTL) openly admits that its policies would endanger the lives of women. It demands that Republican candidates work to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape. And it declares its commitment to faith-based politics, noting that Amendment 48, the "personhood" initiative that seeks to define a fertilized egg as a person, would allegedly "uphold God's enduring command."

Today I also discussed the politics of the situation; here I address the ideology, as detailed in the "CRTL 2008 Candidate Questionnaire."

Following are several of the group's questions:

Do you advocate that the government uphold the God-given, inalienable Right to Life for the unborn?

Do you agree that abortion is always wrong, even when the baby's father is a criminal (a rapist)? [See life-of-the mother note below.]

Do you support the 2008 Colorado Personhood amendment effort to define "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization?

Will you oppose any research or practice that would intentionally destroy the tiniest living humans (embryonic stem cell research)?

The group declares that, in the name of God, it desires to force women to have the babies of rapists, grant equal rights to fertilized eggs, and prohibit potentially life-saving medical research.

What about the mother's life?

When the mother's life is seriously threatened by a pregnancy, of course it is morally justified to deliver the baby but not if the intention is to kill the baby. When the life of the mother is at serious risk by her pregnancy, the goal must be to save the life of the mother and the baby if at all possible. It is just as wrong to kill the mother to save the baby, as it is to kill the baby to save the mother. "Legalizing" abortion, defined as the intentional killing of the unborn child, for the life of the mother leads to repugnant acts like emergency removal of late-term babies from the womb stopping midway in the procedure to kill the baby. If the baby dies, it is a tragedy; if the baby is intentionally killed, it is murder. If necessary to save the mom's life, the unborn baby could be delivered with the determination to care for both, and if possible, to save both the baby and mother!

Obviously, the best scenario is to save the mother and baby. However, when there is a conflict, CRTL is perfectly willing to sacrifice the mother, an actual human being, to an embryo, only a potential. Here is the key line: " It is... wrong... to kill the baby to save the mother."

Colorado Right to Life in fact endorses policies that would kill actual human beings. The group's alleged "right to life" means for some an obligation to die.

The organization makes clear that it does not merely wish to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the decision to the states, as so many Republicans declare:

Antonin Scalia has publicly stated that he would strike down any law that prohibited abortion in all fifty states, and Clarence Thomas has ruled that the public has the right to decide to legalize the killing of unborn children. Sadly, not even one of the seven current U.S. Supreme Court Justices nominated by Republican presidents support the right to life of the unborn.

Further, our pro-life presidents have nominated sixty percent of the U.S. federal judiciary, and yet the judiciary utterly rejects the right to life of the unborn. Also we should remember that the pro-abortion Roe v. Wade decision was written by a Republican Justice and passed by the Republican majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, and abortion was legalized in Colorado by Republican governor John Love in 1967.

Most Americans don't buy into CRTL's absurd, pro-death, faith-based agenda. The problem is that Americans are used to viewing everything through pragmatist eyes, so many can't understand that CRTL means it. They actually want to ban birth control that prevents a fertilized egg from growing. They actually want to force 13-year-old girls to bear the children of rapists. They actually want doctors to let women die if necessary to save the fetus. They are deadly serious. It is time for sensible Coloradans to take them at their word and reject their dogmatic agenda resoundingly.

Lott on Abortion

John Lott explains the social impacts of abortion in a recent article for Fox. He argues that liberalized abortion laws resulted in the following:

A sharp increase in pre-marital sex.
A sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births.
A drop in the number of children placed for adoption.
A decline in marriages that occur after the woman is pregnant.

Lott argues, "With abortion seen as a backup, women as well as men became less careful in using contraceptives as well as more likely to have premarital sex." However, because not all of these women had an abortion, they had babies out of wedlock. Because men see abortion as a legitimate option, they are less likely to assume a fatherhood role if their partners choose to have the baby.

Lott argues that changed abortion laws were "a key contributing factor" to these trends. I find his case persuasive. However, my sense is that other factors are more important. For example, the era was also marked by Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society," which in essence paid women to have children out of wedlock. And did liberalized abortion lead to more extra-marital sex, or vice versa? It was also an era of women's liberation and loosened sexual mores.

The broader point is that it's wrong to violate individual rights even if some people behave irresponsibly. For example, we wouldn't argue that women shouldn't have equal rights as men to own property and such, even if such rights contribute to irresponsible extra-marital sex.

People who have extra-marital sex should choose their partners carefully and take the proper steps to avoid unwanted pregnancy. This is not difficult. Properly used birth control is highly effective. Couples who have sex should know in advance how they're going to handle unexpected pregnancy. Couples should also bear the responsibility for children they bring into the world, rather than qualify for forced wealth transfers.

An embryo is not a person. A woman has a right to get an abortion. Any negative social consequences should be addressed in other ways, not by violating people's rights. As Diana Hsieh writes, banning abortions "would force a woman to provide life support to any fertilized egg -- even at the risk of her life and health and even if ruinous to her goals and dreams. It would make actual persons -- any woman capable of bearing children, plus her husband or boyfriend -- slaves to merely potential persons."

Liggett, Hsieh Oppose 'Personhood' Amendment 48

Amendment 48, the Colorado ballot measure that seeks to define a fertilized egg as a person, has provoked passionate and reasoned opposition. The Denver Post recently published pieces by Gina Liggett and Diana Hsieh.

Liggett writes:

The Thomas More Law Center, which provides legal support for these groups, calls itself "the sword and shield for people of (Christian) faith" to fight for Christian values, which it claims are the foundation of our nation. Kristi Burton, the founder of CER, was quoted in denverpost.com (1-1/14/07) saying "we have God. And he is all we need." ...

If this barbaric "personhood" amendment passes, whose rights will prevail when a woman has a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy? Will a girl who's been raped be compelled against her will to carry a pregnancy resulting from that brutality? Will lawyers defending fertilized eggs argue that a miscarriage is a violation of an embryo's right to life, making a woman and her physician legally negligent? ... Many reliable birth control methods would have to be outlawed because they interfere with implantation of a fertilized egg. Couples unable to conceive would be forbidden to try in-vitro fertilization because some of the lab-created fertilized eggs are not used.

And Hsieh writes:

A woman's fundamental right to control her own body, including her right to terminate or sustain a pregnancy, should not depend on majority vote. This would violate that right in spades, based on the fantasy that an embryo is equal to an infant. It would force a woman to provide life support to any fertilized egg -- even at the risk of her life and health and even if ruinous to her goals and dreams.

Hsieh's letter appears with two others, one for and one against. The first refers to an alleged "impossibility to decide doctrinal merits," while the other states, without argument, "We believe that human life [a person] begins at conception." The first letter expresses skepticism, the second religion, while Hsieh's letter offers a positive moral theory based on the facts of reality and the requirements of human life. At least the debate over Amendment 48 takes us to fundamentals.

Personhood and Rights

In a comment to my recent post about Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person, Jonathan Briggs writes:

Ignoring religion, let's use biology. It seems to me that we as a species, are wired to have an urge to protect women and children. Men are the expendable protectors of the future generations.

Just ask a group of people if it's a worse crime to punch a man, a woman, a pregnant woman, or a child.

The responses to that should come out that punching pregnant women and children is a worse crime than punching a man.

That tells us something. It seems that a pregnancy is valued almost equally to an actual child, even in the absence of religion. It's survival instinct wired by biology. Blaming religion and "evangelicals" for this is absurd.

The fact that we harshly condemn a criminal for harming a pregnant woman in no way implies that a fertilized egg is a person. I see no inherent problem with defining enhanced criminal penalties for harming a woman's embryo. That's not what Amendment 48 is about. Amendment 48 is about imposing criminal penalties on the woman (or her doctor) for harming her own fertilized egg. And that is a religiously motivated policy.

An embryo is a potential person, and that does matter very much to the mother who wants and expects to bear the child. A mother-to-be invests a great deal of emotional energy, physical preparation, and planning in her future child. Thus, someone who harms a pregnant woman harms not only the woman's health, but another dear value to her. Plus, usually it's possible to tell whether a woman is pregnant, so somebody who intentionally harms a pregnant woman is particularly nasty.

By analogy, if somebody intentionally broke the fingers of virtuoso piano player, we would condemn the perpetrator more harshly than had he simply punched a person in the face. That doesn't mean that a finger should be defined as a person, even though it is both human and alive.

'Personhood' Amendment Makes Ballot

Following is a media release from a group opposing the 'personhood' amendment, now known as Amendment 48. I've criticized the measure and discussed the politics surrounding it. Unfortunately, by claiming people must "agree to disagree" and that the measure is "not simple" but "extreme," the release fails to make the essential arguments: a fertilized egg is not, in fact, a person, and banning abortions would violate the rights and threaten the lives of actual people. Nevertheless, I'm glad that Coloradans are organizing to defeat the ghastly measure.

MEDIA RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- May 29, 2008
CONTACT -- Crystal Clinkenbeard

DENVER, CO -- May 29, 2008 - Today the Colorado Secretary of State ruled that backers of the "Definition of Person" amendment submitted enough valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot. Opposition group Protect Families Protect Choices (PFPC) issued the following statement in response:

"Vote No on Amendment 48, the so-called 'Definition of Person.' Accessible health care is tough enough for many people and their families," said Crystal Clinkenbeard, a spokesperson for opposition group PFPC. "This ballot measure threatens access to health care, birth control, infertility treatments, and medical research -- just to name a few."

"Amending the Colorado constitution is always serious business. Responsible government, allows us to appreciate and respect individual opinions. Sometimes people have to agree to disagree. Defining a fertilized egg as a 'person' in our Constitution and statutes is not scientifically based and simply makes bad public policy."

"The No on Amendment 48 Campaign wants voters to know this dangerous amendment is not simple: it is extreme. It threatens women's health care. It threatens lifesaving medical research. It threatens state laws and policies that refer to 'person' or 'people' -- the consequences of this constitutional change are unknown and dangerous and will affect hundreds if not thousands of laws within our state statues."

###
Contact Crystal Clinkenbeard, Protect Families Protect Choices Press Secretary... for more information or to schedule an interview.

Protect Families Protect Choices is a broad-based, bi-partisan coalition committed to defeating Amendment 48, the so-called "Definition of Person." It includes nurses, doctors, religious leaders, and health advocacy organizations. Learn more about Protect Families Protect Choices at www.protectfamiliesprotectchoice.org.

Campaign Against 'Personhood' Amendment

I pass along the following media release as an item of interest.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Campaign to Defeat So-Called "Personhood" Amendment Launched

DENVER (May 6) -- On Tuesday, May 6, a broad-based coalition of nurses, doctors, religious leaders, community groups and health care advocacy organizations launched the campaign to defeat the proposed so-called "Human Life Amendment."

"If passed, this amendment would permanently alter Colorado’s constitution and allow government intrusion into Coloradans' personal, private medical decisions," said Toni Panetta, spokesperson for Protect Families Protect Choices. "This dangerous and deceptive measure would lay the legal foundation to deny Coloradans the health care they need."

"As a physician, this proposed constitutional amendment really scares me," said Dr. Mary Fairbanks, a family physician who has practiced for more than 20 years. "'The moment of fertilization' is not a medical definition, and so defining a person in that way interferes with the practice of medicine. This proposed amendment jeopardizes women’s health and will interfere with my ability to treat my patients."

The change to Colorado's constitution as it relates to inalienable rights, due process and equality of justice could provide the legal foundation for the government to investigate women or their doctors in the event of a miscarriage. The supporter of a similar measure in Montana has said this type of amendment could be used to investigate women to see what they may have done to cause a miscarriage.

"There's no denying that this amendment would open the door to government control over some of the most personal choices facing Coloradans today," said Gayle Berry, former state representative of House District 55 in Grand Junction. "This is not a partisan issue. Both sides of the aisle can agree that if this amendment passes, Coloradans will lose the right to make decisions about their own families."

Proponents of the initiative have until May 13 to submit at least 76,000 valid signatures to the Colorado Secretary of State's office to qualify the amendment for the November 2008 ballot.

Protect Families, Protect Choices is a broad-based coalition of nurses, doctors, religious leaders, community groups and pro-choice advocacy organizations including the League of Women Voters, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, and many others.
###

Speaker Biographies, Current Coalition Members, and Campaign Overview Follow

Speaker Biographies

Jacinta "Jacy" Montoya is executive director of Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights (COLOR). Montoya was born and raised in the Denver area to a Chicano father and a mother of Irish-German descent, whose families have lived in Colorado for more than 7 generations. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree in the growth & structure of cities program at Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania. Upon graduation, Montoya returned to Denver to work in the community in which she was raised. Her goal is to contribute to healthy communities, healthy Latinas, and healthy families by working to turn policy into action.

Dr. Mary Fairbanks is a family physician who has practiced in Colorado since 1990 After receiving her undergraduate degree from Dartmouth College, she completed medical school and her residency at Columbia University. Dr. Fairbanks is currently a faculty member at St. Anthony's Family Medicine Residency where she instructs future family practice physicians.

Senator Betty Boyd (D, Lakewood, SD 21) understands that the majority of Coloradans trust women to make their own personal health-care decisions, in consultation with their doctors, their families, and their conscience. On issues related to reproductive health, Boyd has sponsored legislation signed into law that ensures sexual assault survivors receive information about emergency contraception in the emergency room and that will allow more low-income Coloradans to receive family planning services through Medicaid to prevent unintended pregnancy. Prior to serving as state senator, she served as state representative to Colorado House District 26. Before seeking legislative office, Boyd worked for eight years as a legislative advocate for social justice.

Gayle Berry is the former state representative to Colorado House District 55 in Grand Junction. During her eight year tenure in the legislature (1996-2004), Berry was a member of the powerful Joint Budget Committee, the House Appropriations Committee, and was chair of the House Transportation Committee. Known among her colleagues as a member who could build coalitions on both sides of the aisle, Berry sponsored legislation as diverse as revising the Colorado Consumer Code, to protecting abandoned babies. She also received over 30 awards for legislative excellence during her tenure from business, economic, and human services groups. Nationally, she served on a number of legislative committees concerned with tax & fiscal policy, transportation, and women’s issues. A graduate of Fruita Monument High School and Mesa State College, Berry is a life-long resident of the western slope, and has been active in a wide range of community affairs including business, education, and family welfare.

Dr. Andrew Ross is a native of New York City and a graduate of University of Michigan with a degree in Biological Anthropology, and of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. He did his residency training in Obstetrics and Gynecology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. Dr. Ross moved to Denver a little over 5 years ago. He is an OB/GYN in private practice in the south metro area. He serves on the executive and legislative committees of the Colorado Gynecological and Obstetric Society and is the director of Continuing Medical Education for the OB/GYN Department at Swedish Hospital. Dr. Ross also serves as Board Chair to the Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountain Action Fund.


Member Organizations & Endorsements

Organizations

ACLU Colorado
American Association of University Women of Colorado
Americans for Cures
Boulder Valley Women’s Health Center
Center for Reproductive Rights
Colorado Gynecological-Obstetrical Society
Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights
Colorado Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Colorado Women's Agenda
Colorado Women’s Bar Association
Denver Women's Commission
Freedom Fund
Indigenous Youth Sovereignty Project
Interfaith Alliance of Colorado
League of Women Voters
LUZ Reproductive Justice Think Thank
NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado
National Abortion Federation
National Council of Jewish Women – Colorado Section
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains
ProgressNow
Republican Majority for Choice
White House Project
Women's Lobby of Colorado


State Legislators

Sen. Betty Boyd
Sen. Dan Gibbs
Sen. Bob Hagedorn
Sen. John Morse
Sen. Chris Romer
Sen. Nancy Spence
Sen. Sue Windels
Rep. Alice Borodkin
Rep. Terrance Carroll
Rep. Randy Fischer
Rep. Sara Gagliardi
Rep. Gwyn Green
Rep. Cheri Jahn
Rep. Joel Judd
Rep. John Kefalas
Rep. Andy Kerr
Rep. Claire Levy
Rep. Alice Madden
Rep. Anne McGihon
Rep. Joe Rice

###

2008 Protect Families Protect Choices Campaign Overview
Defeating the so-called "Human Life Amendment"

This fall, Colorado voters may be asked to amend our constitution to redefine "person" and to grant constitutional rights from the moment of conception. The proposed amendment is vague, dangerous and simply goes too far. It seeks to restrict women's access to health care, it invites government intrusion into our personal lives, and, if it passes, it's permanent.

The Protect Families Protect Choices Coalition is leading the campaign to defeat this dangerous measure.

What's at stake:
Access to affordable health care is tough enough for many families in Colorado and this deceptively written ballot measure would make matters worse by putting women’s lives at risk and further restricting access to health care.

It is so vaguely worded that its true impact is impossible to predict but what we do know is bad enough.

This amendment would ban all abortion, including in cases of rape, incest or when the woman's life is at risk.
If a pregnant woman were diagnosed with cancer, she may be denied access to life-saving medical treatment because it would endanger the fetus.
This amendment is so extreme it could ban the most popular forms of birth control.
This amendment attempts to place politicians and lawyers in the middle of our most personal, private medical decisions.
The wording is so unclear it could open the door to government interference in decisions about birth control, infertility treatments and stem cell research.

The Colorado Constitution was created to protect us. Amending it should not be taken lightly and it should not be done at all for this deceptively written measure. If this proposed amendment were to pass, it would permanently change our constitution to restrict access to health care.

Our opponents:
Like the initiative they are promoting, the group promoting this measure is deceptively named. The so-called "Colorado for Equal Rights" organization is made up of extreme anti-choice groups from beyond our state borders. Although the leader of the organization, Kristi Burton, is a Colorado native, the group's funding comes from outside groups including the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan, Bound4Life in Washington, DC, and the Alliance Defense Fund in Arizona.


The challenges:
In this presidential election year, Coloradans will also decide one of the most competitive senate races in the country, several strongly contested congressional races and as a many as a dozen statewide ballot initiatives. Reaching Colorado voters through all the political advertising will be more difficult than usual.

Our opponents are hoping their deceptively written initiative, with its short and simple-sounding language, will sneak through the clutter. They are counting on people not understanding the full ramifications of the proposed amendment.

Our challenge is to get beyond the clutter, be heard over the noise and let voters know that the so-called Human Life Amendment restricts access to health care and invites government intrusion in our private medical decisions.

We need to reach out to voters with a strong grassroots effort as well as earned and paid media campaigns.

Schaffer on Abortion

Bob Schaffer, formerly of the U.S. Congress, currently is running for Senate against Mark Udall. As I've reviewed, Udall has clearly and unambiguously endorsed the separation of church and state. What about Schaffer? While he has not replied to my inquiry, and while I don't know his views on a variety of issues, he has made very clear his views on abortion.

Recently the Rocky Mountain News published a speech that Schaffer delivered in 2000 in northeastern Colorado, when Schaffer was a member of Congress. Following are some of the most important quotes:

[A]bortion as a a constitutional right... was first fabricated... in 1973... when our government stripped from the unborn child the fundamental Right to Life. ...

Tonight I want to congratulate this Pro-Life Alliance assembled here, because you have not abandoned that opening precept of our American Declaration. Nor have you abandoned the self-evident Truth that, regardless of the opinions of Washington, D.C.'s elite, the natural, God-given Rights of the unborn are still very much in force.

Your very presence here tonight reinforces it. Your money, your time, and most of all, your prayers are all testimony to the unifying force of the Creator and the true benevolence of Divine Providence. Indeed, it was 2000 years ago that He revealed to the world the way of victory over death, through a Child.

And it is because of the promise of the Christ Child that we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God hears our prayers for all souls. He hears our prayers that His mercy be generously dispensed upon the souls of the unborn, the souls of their mothers, their fathers, and even their executioners and all those who, through their own weakness, have become the counselors of darkness.

Our prayer and our mission here tonight is for life. Friends, the simple fact is, at abortion mills across the country, there is simply too much death, and too much violence. It is wrong, and it must stop. Whether perpetrated against the unborn, or any other human being, violence and premature death is always wrong. ...

See to it that this Republic for which we stand is truly one nation under God, and that we do extend the full benefits of Liberty and Justice to all living human beings, born and unborn.

At least Schaffer's statements are unambiguous. He believes that God prohibits abortion in all cases, that a fertilized egg has a God-given soul, and that the government should obey God's will. A search of the speech for "rape," "incest," and "life of the the mother" pulls up only "not found." Abortion "is always wrong," according to Schaffer (though I don't know whether he has since made any concessions).

It would be nice if my choice in the race weren't between a socialist and a theocrat. But I absolutely cannot vote for the theocrat.

Lake of Fire

Lake of Fire is a documentary that explores the issue of abortion in America. It gives plenty of time to both sides, but it also allows religious extremists in the debate to indict themselves. The documentary is worth viewing not only for those interested in the issue on both sides, but for those interested in the nasty turns that religion can take. Various Christians shown throughout the movie literally advocate and/or commit murder and terrorism in the name of God.

The main problem with the documentary is its editing. It is severely disjointed; it keeps jumping back and forth between issues, speakers, and stories for no apparent reason. I lost track of the number of superfluous songs included in it. (If I wanted to watch music videos, I'd get MTV.) A number of the clips, such as from Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes, are completely pointless (and the bit from Keyes is also taken out of context). At 152 minutes, the film is painfully long; I yearned for it to end. Cut of its fluff, it easily could have fit within an hour and forty-five minutes.

The documentary contains three main parts (mashed together). It explores the views of opponents of abortion, tracks a thoughtful but incomplete debate among left-leaning intellectuals, and shows abortion procedures.

The views of opponents of abortion fall into two main categories: abortion should be outlawed, and abortion should be violently protested as well as outlawed. Most prominent of the legislation-only camp is Norma McCorvey, otherwise known as Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade fame. McCorvey describes how, following her episodes of self-mutilation and involvement with new-age mysticism, she found Jesus and changed her mind on abortion. "I'm a servant of Christ now," she says at an event.

The general theme among the religious opponents of abortion is that "life" begins at conception and that God prohibits abortion.

What the documentary does not do is explore nuances of opinion. Many people only want some restrictions on late-term abortions, yet nobody from that camp was interviewed for the film.

The film is downright frightening when it shows interviews and talks by those who favor violence. Following are several of the scary quotes:

"We will not back down on upholding the law of God. If this nation, if Bill Clinton, is going to reject the law of God, then this nation is going to die [i.e., self-destruct]."

"I think they should execute blasphemers [including those who say "god damn it"]... because that's what the Bible teaches."

"Abortionists should be executed."

"They've been seduced by Satan... We're coming right into the middle of Satan's territory up here in Colorado..."

One fellow (who also offered the quote directly above) argues that advocates of legal abortion consist of three types of people: satan worshippers, homosexuals, and "the pro-death." But this guy clearly is delusional; he also claims that he's seen employees of abortion clinics barbecue the aborted fetuses. I don't think interviewing insane people contributes much to the discussion.

Much of the documentary reviews the various murders committed by Christian opponents of abortion. When one of the murderers is sentenced to execution, several people supported the murderer. The film interviews one woman who was a victim of a bombing of an abortion clinic.

One person discusses Christian Reconstructionism, the movement of Rushdoony. The goal of the movement, according to the documentary, is to establish religious law; implement the death penalty for abortion, homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery, heresy, apostasy, and witchcraft (among other things); and generally to establish a Christian theocracy.

Much of the film is dated and seems so; at this point the religious right has fairly effectively dampened calls for violence against the "abortion industry."

The left-leaning intellectuals include Nat Hentoff -- who, notably, opposes abortion on secular grounds -- Alan Dershowitz, Noam Chomsky, and Peter Singer. Not surprisingly, the overriding theme of these people is moral ambiguity and subjectivism. Dershowitz argues, "Everybody is right;" it's "very, very difficult" to draw "black and white lines." Chomsky says, "The values we hold are not absolute."

Of course there is a gray boundary here; even Ayn Rand, who adamantly favored legal abortion, drew a distinction between embryos and fetuses just before birth (see Ayn Rand Answers, page 17). But, for Rand, the emphasis was on the morally clear regions -- particularly the early stages versus an independent child at birth. (See her additional comments.) Those interviewed for the film emphasize the moral grayness at the expense of the morally certain.

However, the documentary is obviously editing content to make a point. One woman claims that we should move away from the language of rights, which implies right and wrong. The film pits the view of moral relativism and subjectivism against Christian absolutist dogma. The film ignores -- or includes only incidentally -- the possibility that moral clarity may be reached outside of the context of religious dogma.

The film conflates general moral ambiguity with the fact that women should choose whether to get an abortion based on their personal conditions. But those are two separate issues. The claim that women have an absolute moral right to get an abortion has nothing to do with whether a particular woman should choose to get an abortion. Similarly, freedom of speech says nothing about whether an individual should go into journalism.

The film's greatest failing is to never bring to the forefront the distinction between a potential and an actual person. Hentoff, the outlier, argues that an embryo is "a developing human being," and no one debates this. But the relevant distinction is that an embryo is a potential person, whereas a born child is an actual, independent person. The documentary should have included interviews with people who argue this position.

All of the film's favored intellectuals, of course, endorse welfare statism, regardless of their stance on abortion. Chomsky, for instance, derides the U.S. for not giving more in foreign aid.

The film contrasts the secular left-wingers with the Bible-thumping anti-government types. One fellow argues that we should establish laws "as outlined by God," which, for him, entails the right to keep and bear arms, the abolition of the IRS, and "constitutional government" (whatever that means for him). Never have I been so struck by the danger of affiliating with kooks who hold superficially similar political positions. As a secularist, I support both legal abortion and economic liberty. I have practically nothing in common with Chomsky, but I have even less in common with those who think that welfare should be abolished because it violates God's will for our allegedly "Christian Nation." Of course, my perspective is not one that the documentary chooses to explore, for it has its own agenda.

The film also shows two women getting abortions. One woman gets hers relatively late, at five months, while another gets hers early. One problem with the film is that it does not discuss how many abortions occur within the first trimester, why some abortions are performed later, or what Roe v. Wade has to say about late-term abortions. The unfortunate impression left by the film, then, is that abortions typically or often involve fully-developed fetuses, which is simply not the case.

Still, the documentary is worth viewing despite its many faults and shortcomings, so long as viewers are aware of those issues.

Anti-Abortion Group Sues Google

As I've pointed out, Google's ad policies are completely arbitrary and in fact violated by Google itself. I wrote,

If Google flagrantly violates its own stated policy for ads, then clearly that particular policy is meaningless. However, if, as one of the comments on an earlier post alleges, Google has pulled its ads from another web page because of that page's arguments, is Google opening itself up to potential legal action?

However, I'm not sure that a recent law suit has much merit. Fox reports:

A Christian group in Britain is suing Google over the search engine's alleged refusal to place an ad related to abortion.

According to the Christian Institute, the text ad would have popped up on the right side of a user's screen whenever the word "abortion" was searched for or prominently appeared.

It would have read: "UK abortion law: Key views and news on abortion law from The Christian Institute. www.christian.org.uk". ...

Google rejected the ad with the statement, "Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'abortion and religion-related content,'" according to the Christian Institute's press release.

The Christian Institute counters that "Google is happy to allow adverts for non-religious sites with views on abortion," and is taking the Internet giant to court on grounds of religious discrimination. ...

Searches for "abortion" on both the American and British Google Web sites bring up ads for abortion providers, but none to political, advocacy or religious groups on either side of the issue.

Both Google sites, however, include an ad for StandUpGirl.com, a Web site aimed at talking teenage girls out of having abortions.

I'll try to briefly untangle the issue. A suit based on "religious discrimination" is illegitimate. Google has property rights, and thus it has the right to set whatever ad policies it deems fit. To take a local example, some Colorado publications refuse to run ads for firearms.

The potential problem involves contract. Is Google effectively making a contradictory offer to would-be ad purchasers? If Google is simultaneously saying, through its actions, that ads about abortion are fine, but then indicating that certain ads about abortion are forbidden, that could be a problem. Then the issue would be that people spend their resources to set up ads with Google that Google may then arbitrarily deny. Unfortunately, I was not able to locate Google's policies regarding ads pertaining to abortion.

What this is not is a free-speech issue. If Google refuses to do business with certain advertisers, Google is not thereby violating free speech. Freedom of speech protects people from government censorship; it does not impose a duty on some to publicize the speech of others. Indeed, forcing one party to promote the views of others violates that party's freedom of speech.

However, it might be a fairness issue. Google ought not arbitrarily deny some ads but not others or impose contradictory standards.

Moreover, it seems to me that in the rough-and-tumble world of the internet, it's a bit silly for a large company to refuse to do business with Christians with an anti-abortion agenda. I go back to the Ann Coulter test: if Google will let Coulter display Google ads, can Google reasonably exclude others with less contentious views?

Catholics "To End Abortion"

Recently I described and criticized the effort in Colorado to define a fertilized egg as a person. While the Catholic Church has not officially endorsed the measure, Catholics also wish "to end abortion," according to one spokesperson.

Electa Draper writes for the February 28 Denver Post:

"We commend the goal of this effort to end abortion. Individual Catholics may choose to work for its passage," [Colorado Catholic Conference Executive Director Jennifer] Kraska said.

"At the same time, we recognize that other people committed to the sanctity of life have raised serious questions about this specific amendment's timing and content," she said.

Kraska does not reveal -- and Draper does not report -- what problems some Catholics find with the measure's "timing and content." But Kraska could not be more clear in her position on abortion -- a position that, far from preserving "the sanctity of life," would destroy the sanctity of life of some people.

Nor are other Catholics as hesitant, as Draper continues:

"It's a political, gutless position," said Judie Brown, president of the American Life League.

"As a Catholic, it's the most scandalous thing I've ever heard," Brown said. "I can't believe that any bishop wouldn't want to be out in the front lines helping the petitioners. The sanctity of life is a fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church."

This issue is not limited to Colorado. Draper concludes:

The Colorado effort is part of a national movement to win Supreme Court review of Roe v. Wade, Brown said. Montana and Mississippi also have ballot initiatives in progress for 2008; Georgia, Michigan, Ohio and Oregon were working toward a 2009 measure.

Nobody can say the advocates of faith-based politics didn't warn us.

A Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person

Recently I discussed Mike Huckabee's opposition to abortion. He really means it. A February 26 article from the Rocky Mountain News states:

A proposed ballot measure that would define personhood as a fertilized egg picked up the endorsement of Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister.

In a statement Monday, Huckabee said the amendment proposed by 20-year-old Kristi Burton and her group, Colorado for Equal Rights, would send a clear message that every human life has value.

Here is the text of the proposal:

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:

SECTION 1. Article II of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:

Section 31. Person defined. 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.

And here is what those three sections state:

Section 3. Inalienable rights.

All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Section 6. Equality of justice.

Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay.

Section 25. Due process of law.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

Here I will briefly recapitulate the case against the proposal.

A fertilized egg is not a person. It is (in the right circumstances) a potential person, but a potential is not an actual person. A fertilized egg is human in the sense that it contains human DNA, but that is the case with every cell in our bodies. The distinction between a potential and actual person applies throughout gestation, but it is particularly obvious in the case of a fertilized egg. A fertilized egg soon becomes a clump of undifferentiated cells; certainly it cannot function or live independently.

A fertilized egg is not a person and therefore does not have rights. A woman has an absolute right to abort a fertilized egg and older embryo. (This is true even if the pregnancy resulted from irresponsible behavior.)

What would be some of the implications of treating a fertilized egg as a person?

The measure, if enforced (which is another matter), would outlaw all abortions, even in the case of rape, incest, severe damage to the embryo, and danger to the woman's life. The measure would probably outlaw the use of all "morning after" medications. That means that women, and/or their doctors, and/or the producers and suppliers of items used for abortion, would be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment.

It so happens that a large percentage of pregnancies are naturally terminated by women's bodies. It is also the case that sometimes a fertilized egg begins to grow outside of the uterus; this is called an ectopic pregnancy.

Treating a fertilized egg as a person, then, would require a criminal investigation into any terminated pregnancy in which the women was suspected of inducing her body's rejection of the egg, embryo, or fetus. Serious enforcement of the measure would require the machinations of a police state. Treating a fertilized egg as a person would also require the woman to risk and often surrender her life in the case of dangerous pregnancies, including ectopic ones.

The measure is hideously immoral and ghastly in its implications.

Huckabee Compares Abortion to Slavery

Mike Huckabee recently visited Colorado to meet James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Huckabee also spoke at an event hosted by the Leadership Program of the Rockies. The Denver Post reported the news and reviewed some of Huckabee's comments:

Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, said liberty requires "moral clarity" and that equality demands a human-life amendment to the Constitution. He said that even if the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973, it wouldn't go far enough.

"What that means is that every one of the 50 states can come up with its own definition of life," said Huckabee, equating abortion with slavery. "That's the logic of the Civil War. That's the idea that morality is geographical. It's the notion that something can be right in one state and wrong in another. Well, when it came to slavery, we finally got it right that you can't own another human being."

So Huckabee was serious when he said he wants to "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards."

I do agree with Huckabee about the illegitimacy of moral relativism. Yet Huckabee seeks to replace moral relativism with universally enforced religious dogma, which is even worse. There is simply no basis in reality for equating a fertilized egg with a person, as Huckabee is trying to do. Therefore, Huckabee's suggestion that abortion is morally equal to slavery is absurd. Outlawing abortion in any state would be morally wrong.

Hsieh on Abortion

On February 11, a committee of Colorado's legislature killed Bill 95, which would have imposed a 24-hour waiting period for abortions following mandated information about ultrasounds. Diana Hsieh sent the following letter to legislators (and gave me permission to reproduce it):

It is my understanding that SB 95 will be heard in the Senate State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee on Monday. The bill would require "a physician to provide information regarding an ultrasound to a woman prior to the woman's decision whether to have an abortion."

I urge you to oppose this bill. Colorado ought not impose any such restrictions on abortion.

The purpose of the bill is not to require genuine informed consent. Every woman who chooses to have an abortion knows that she is destroying a potential (but not actual) human being -- not a shoe, plant, or a hippo. She violates no rights in doing so. She ought not be forced to look at pictures.

So the sole purpose of the bill is be to make abortion more costly. It is part of an attempt by foes of abortion to regulate it out of existence, since they cannot ban it out right. All such attempts morally wrong. They ought to be opposed.

The Forty Day Abortion Protest

The Gazette of Colorado Springs published an interesting article on February 7 about an ongoing protest of an office of Planned Parenthood:

40-day, round-the-clock vigil will protest abortion

By Mark Barna
February 7, 2008 - 12:49AM

For the next 39 days, a group of Catholics and Protestants will gather around the clock on a sidewalk outside a Planned Parenthood office to protest abortion.

The vigil began at 12:01 a.m. on Ash Wednesday, when the Rev. Bill Carmody [Respect Life director for the Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs] prayed outside Planned Parenthood at 1330 W. Colorado Ave. Two or more protesters plan to be there on a rotating schedule to pray, read biblical verses and talk to women arriving for appointments. ...

Jody Berger, communications director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, said... previous protests have been peaceful, and the participants stayed off Planned Parenthood’s property in accordance with a state “bubble law.” The law prohibits protesters from coming within 100 feet of the entrance of medical facilities and within 8 feet of their clients.

Of course, I fully support the right to protest, on public property, so long as the protest does not impede lawful activity. But I do wonder what sort of "talking to" the clients of Planned Parenthood will receive.

The article points out that, while the protest revolves around Catholic observances, "Protestant protesters say it transcends denominational differences." While it truly is refreshing that Catholics and Protestants have settled down to work with each other, their bloody decades of mutual slaughter safely behind us, unfortunately these churches join not only to peaceably protest but to enforce their religious doctrines by force of law. I wonder if a single one of the protesters would hesitate to outlaw all or nearly all abortions, given the chance.

The article continues with this insightful exchange:

Berger would like to see all church leaders join with Planned Parenthood to promote sex education and the use of contraception as a way to reduce abortions.

Carmody scoffed at the idea.

“Of course they want to promote contraception,” he said. “It’s good for their business. I promote chastity.”

Ah, yes, chastity. That's the solution. No sex. I presume that Carmody means to exclude married couples, so long as they too refrain from using contraception, as birth control violates Catholic doctrine.

Of course, I've been married for nearly a decade now, and contraception has worked perfectly well over that entire period. I wonder what percent of all pregnancies that end in abortion result from properly used contraception that failed. My guess is that in the large majority of cases, no contraception was used, and in the overwhelming majority of the exceptions, it was used improperly. If everyone who had sex used contraception properly, then, the number of unplanned pregnancies would plummet. But that not an acceptable goal for Carmody.

Perhaps Berger now realizes that the ultimate goal of these Christians is not merely to "educate" women about the alleged evils of abortion, it is to outlaw abortion, based on Christian doctrine, and to eliminate all sex outside of marriage.

Morris on Obama

Father Jonathan Morris complains that Barack Obama rejects "some of the most basic principles of Christian morality." Morris is most concerned about abortion. Morris writes:

Examine carefully the religious language he employs: "I do think that those who diminish the moral elements of the decision aren't expressing the full reality of it. But what I believe is that women do not make these decisions casually, and that they struggle with it fervently with their pastors, with their spouses, with their doctors."

Is Sen. Obama suggesting that Christians who consider "the moral elements of the decision" and who "struggle with it fervently with their pastors" may be in line with God’s will by deciding that abortion is the right choice? I think he is, or as he would probably say, "the right choice for them."

Sen. Obama goes even further with this creative mix of religious talk and completely subjective morality. He suggests women "pray about" whether to have an abortion -- as if God might whisper his approval. ("Bill Clinton’s Analogy Revisited: Barack Obama vs. Jesse Jackson," January 28, 2008)

Morris's analysis is interesting for several reasons. First, it is obvious that Obama is restrained by his party in pushing his religious agenda, at least in the area of personal choice (as opposed to the economic arena, where leftists seem eager to adopt religious language to support their economic controls).

Second, what most concerns Morris is Obama's support for legal abortions, not Obama's faith-based socialism. In general, the religious right makes little effort to defend economic liberty -- and more often openly assaults it.

Third, Morris is absolutely correct about Obama's double standards. Notice that Obama does not reject the religious doctrine that an embryo has the same rights as a person because God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul. Nor does Obama endorse the absolute moral right of women to control their own bodies and futures by getting an abortion. Instead, Obama tempers religious doctrine with a pragmatic subjectivism, as Morris argues. This demonstrates that, just as the religious right cannot, when pushed, defend economic liberty with any conviction, so the religious left cannot, when pushed, defend liberty in the personal sphere.

In any contest between the religious right and the religious left, both sides will tend to win on their pet issues. The religious right maintains an enduring moral fervor for outlawing (and thus imposing criminal penalties for) abortion, while the religious left maintains an enduring moral fervor for forcibly redistributing wealth and controlling the economy. Both sides will tend to "compromise" by eliminating liberty in both the economic and personal spheres.

The Catholic Vote

Electa Draper, who wrote a story about why Christians should impose more "progressive" taxation, also wrote a story several weeks ago about the Catholic opposition to various civil liberties. The story begins:

Colo. churches fight "evil" in voting booth
By Electa Draper
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 11/05/2007 06:11:08 AM MST

Catholic voters can disagree on issues such as immigration policy and health-care reform, but when it comes to the fundamental right to life, church leaders allow no wiggle room in the voting booth.

All three Colorado dioceses and their lobbying arm, the Colorado Catholic Conference, are spelling out to more than 660,000 Catholics in the state what they believe faithful citizenship looks like.

The first thing to notice is that Draper, a news reporter, refers to "the fundamental right to life," which in this context refers to the alleged rights of a fertilized egg, as though that were just a noncontroversial news fact.

Here's the heart of the piece:

"Some things are intrinsically evil and must be opposed," said Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., at the Gospel of Life conference in Denver in October.

These evil acts, in a guide adopted by Colorado and Kansas Catholic bishops, include elective abortion, euthanasia, destruction of embryos in stem-cell research, cloning humans and, though not an equivalent evil, same-sex marriage.

These things are "intrinsically evil" says Christian doctrine. Christian doctrine is wrong.

The view that all "elective abortions" are evil arises from the Christian doctrine that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul. The Catholic position would outlaw even the "morning after" pill, when the embryo consists of a bunch of undifferentiated cells. (Of course, many Catholics would also try to outlaw contraception, except that such an effort would never fly in a nation in which most Protestants find no problem with birth control.) The Catholic position would outlaw abortions even in cases of rape and incest. And what counts as an "elective abortion" likely would be narrowly restricted, resulting in more deaths of women.

The Catholic view on stem-cell research derives from the view on abortion. The position against euthanasia -- and, indeed, all suicide -- even when somebody is in horrific pain, arises from the Catholic view that God forbids suicide. (This doctrine is helpful in stopping Christians from killing themselves in order to enter into Heavenly bliss.) And of course the Catholic position against gay marriage arises from the Biblical claims that homosexuality is sinful.

In all of these cases, the attempt is to impose Christian theology through the political system. (Of course, various Catholics disagree with various aspects of these Catholic views.) The result would be the profound violation of the actual "fundamental right to life" of women and the ill, as well as the right to contract by homosexuals.

Waiting Periods for Abortions?

The Colorado legislature will consider a bill to require waiting periods and ultrasound services before a woman can obtain an abortion:

Lawmaker seeking new requirements for abortions
By Mike Saccone
The Daily Sentinel
Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Women in Colorado seeking to end their pregnancies would have to be offered an ultrasound before they undergo an abortion under legislation proposed by Sen. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs. ...

Senate Bill 95, introduced Monday, would require abortion providers to give information about receiving ultrasounds to pregnant women who are considering abortion. The bill would require doctors to administer an ultrasound if the woman requests one. Women who are informed of their ultrasound rights and still choose to have the abortion would be required to wait 24 hours before having the procedure.

This bill would violate the rights of doctors and patients by putting political force between them. Mainly the bill would increase the costs -- of money and time -- of obtaining an abortion. Saccone continues:

Jody Berger, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, said women often travel long distances to obtain abortions, and making them wait 24 hours to obtain one, after being advised of the availability of ultrasounds, could be a financial burden.

She said it could, for example, force the women to stay overnight at a hotel or make a second long drive to an abortion clinic.

Beyond the extra, needless expense of time and money, the bill treats women as though they were incapable of making their own decisions without the help of politicians. Women are already fully aware of the nature and implications of abortion, and they can already order an ultrasound if they want one. The bill likewise subjects doctors to the whims of political force.

Ironically, Schultheis answered yes to the following question: "Would you oppose legislation mandating a waiting period before the purchase of a firearm?" Apparently, Schultheis believes that women are responsible enough to decide to buy a gun when they want, but not to get an abortion when they want.

Just as the anti-gun lobby attempts to impose additional costs on gun owners in order to discourage gun ownership, so Schultheis wants to impose additional costs on women who want an abortion.

As women have the right to purchase tools of self-defense without political interference, so they have the right to get an abortion without political interference. Of course, Schultheis believes that women have no moral right, and should be striped of their legal right, to get an abortion. He's wrong, but rather than address the issue head-on, he undermines his other views in calling for costly and invasive political restrictions on legally permitted actions.