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.