< PREVIOUS ] [ 2007 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Any day now, we should see petitions to put the Human
Life Amendment
on next year's ballot. Its language was
approved, in the sense of falling under the single-subject
rule, by the Colorado Supreme Court last month. Now the
supporters, an outfit called Colorado for Equal
Rights,
need to gather 76,000 valid signatures by May
13, 2008.
As the supporters explain it, there are many people
who would have you believe this is an overly complicated
issue, but the simplicity of the text of this initiative
speaks for itself. It is not complicated. It is not
confusing. It simply states what should be obvious to
everyone.
The text is simple. Article II of our state
constitution, the portion with our Colorado Bill of Rights,
would get a new provision, 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 to save you from having to track down a copy of our state constitution (not that anyone pays much attention to it anyway), here are the relevant provisions:
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.
Now, let us ponder just how simple
this will be.
Defining a human zygote as a full-bore person means that
every miscarriage that does not occur under medical
supervisions could be treated as a suspicious death to be
investigated by the coroner
Of course it will be simple
to add investigators
and prosecutors, as well as prison cells when it is
determined that a woman engaged in reckless endangerment by
riding horseback -- even if she didn't know she was
expecting at the time.
Or suppose a woman, who may not know she's carrying a
zygote, has a glass of wine with dinner. It could be argued
that she's potentially endangering the health of a human
being who has the inalienable right of safety.
But
there's more. Alcohol can pass from the mother's
bloodstream to the fetus's. Thus with her dinner wine,
she's providing alcohol to a minor. That's a class 2
misdemeanor that can result in up to a year in jail.
Further, the restaurant might face trouble for allowing
minors to be served on its premises. How's it supposed
avoid this? Require a pregnancy test for female patrons?
That's certainly a curious way to advance Colorado for
Equal Rights.
To move on, it appears that it will be difficult for
zygotes to assert many of the rights they would be
guaranteed under the Human Life Amendment. For instance,
our courts are open to every person.
But how would
these yet-to-be born persons
specify their
grievances and engage counsel? Would the court have to
appoint a guardian ad litem
to represent their
interests?
And what of the possibilities of mass murder
connected to those collections of fertilized eggs at
fertility clinics?
Our police, prosecutors and prison staffs seem to be
busy enough these days, without adding more persons
to their responsibilities. And it's easy to image many
feats of creative nanny litigation that will find ways to
insure that Colorado zygotes get their full rights as
persons,
while Colorado women would enjoy fewer
rights than they would if the Taliban ran the place.
In other words, this is about as simple
as the
Internal Revenue Code or the Special Theory of Relativity,
no matter what the proponents say.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2007 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >