[Pflienews] PharmFacts E-News Update: Problems with CO "moment of fertilization" ballott proposal

Mon Jun 2 10:03:57 MDT 2008

*PharmFacts E-News Update -- 2 Jun 2008 AD

*

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_126colorado.html

Picture of oocyte just following sperm penetration (Carnegie Stage I)

  Problems With Colorado's "Personhood" Amendment: The Phrase, "From the
  Moment of Fertilization"

Dianne N. Irving
copyright May 31, 2008
Reproduced with Permission

    [Note: This article is copyrighted and thus must be acknowledged
    when using its original ideas and resources or quoting from it.]

According to a recent LifeSiteNews article (copied in full below), 
Americans finally have an "historic chance to defeat Roe v. Wade on the 
ballot in Colorado". The article continues with a fairly detailed 
account of the publicity surrounding Colorado's "personhood" Amendment 
48, about to be voted on. The Amendment states that, ("the terms 
'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of 
fertilization" 
<http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com/files/initiativetext.pdf>)," and 
that now Colorado "has a chance to be the first to establish the 
personhood of the human being from conception" (assuming they equate 
"conception with "fertilization"). The prolife "legal strategy", 
apparently, is to respond to a "fundamental weakness in Roe" when 
Blackmun wrote the decision, i.e., that "If this suggestion of 
personhood [for the unborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, 
of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed 
specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

As the article also notes, the "Catholic Church in Colorado declares 
neutrality" (at least). This writer would suggest that for once the 
bishops got it right, because Amendment 48 would only legalize 
"personhood" for some categories of unborn human beings, but hardly for 
all. The legal and moral consequences of that would indeed set 
precedents, moral and legal precedents that would instead extend ever 
further the evils and injustices of Roe in this technological age.

While many involved in this effort are surely well-intentioned, the 
/legal exclusionary clause /"from fertilization" (or "from conception") 
would in fact defeat the good intentions of Kristi Burton, spokeswoman 
for Colorado for Equal Rights, when she claimed in the LifeSiteNews 
article how "every life counts, every life is valuable. ... What is the 
unborn child? Are they people? And if so don't they deserve the same 
rights as the rest of us?" If this Amendment passes, Colorado will have 
to answer to the forfeited legal personhood of one of every two 
/naturally occurring /human monozygotic twins /in vivo /(reproduced and 
developed fully in the woman's body, even through 9 months). Colorado 
will also have to answer to the forfeited legal personhood of other 
asexually reproduced human beings /in vitro /(through 9 months), for 
example human clones and other genetically engineered human beings. Are 
these human beings not also human people? Don't they deserve the same 
rights as the rest of us? Even Roe vs Wade did not legally exclude all 
those innocent and even more vulnerable unborn human beings. Yet 
Colorado now stands on the brink of doing just that.

As I have expressed before (see Irving 
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irvi/irvi_67coloradoinitiative.html>), 
the phrase "from conception/fertilization" is scientifically dead wrong, 
and especially dangerous if used exclusionarily in any legal documents. 
Why? Because as all parties fully know and understand by now (including 
those in Colorado), *not all human beings begin to exist at 
"fertilization" or "conception" (sexual reproduction)*. Many human 
beings begin to exist asexually (without the use of sperm or oocyte), 
through quite a number of different kinds of cloning, and different 
kinds of genetic engineering and other artificial reproductive 
technologies. Since Colorado's Amendment 48 specifically applies to 
sexually reproduced human beings only, it would have the legal effect of 
denying human personhood to all categories of asexually reproduced human 
beings - through 9 months.

To explain the problems with Colorado's Amendment 48 in more detail, 
examples of those living innocent human beings who begin to exist 
asexually, and thus who would be excluded from legal personhood, include 
one (or more) of all naturally occurring human monozygotic twins (or 
triplets, quadruplets, etc.) reproduced /in vivo /(in the woman's body, 
through 9 months), as well as one (or more) of all artificially-produced 
human monozygotic twins (or triplets, quadruplets, etc.) reproduced 
through "twinning" /in vitro /(through 9 months) -- as has been 
performed in IVF clinics as "infertility treatments" for many years now 
(referred to as blastomere separation, blastocyst splitting, embryo 
splitting, embryo multiplication). Most prolife attorneys and leaders 
know this perfectly well. It also includes all those living innocent 
human beings reproduced asexually by a variety of cloning and other 
genetic engineering techniques /in vitro/, such as: somatic cell nuclear 
transfer (SCNT); germ line cell nuclear transfer (GLCNT) -- as performed 
for several years now in Gerhart's "fetal tissue" research; pronuclei 
transfer (which produces /human/human /chimeras) -- as has been done in 
order to prevent sex-related chromosomal abnormalities in born infants; 
parthenogenesis; mitochondrial transfer; hemi-cloning; the use of 
artificial chromosomes, genes, pronuclei, nuclei and embryos (as already 
sanctioned by law in Canada, Australia and New Zealand). What about the 
"legal personhood" of all of these living innocent human beings?

Additionally, consider that almost all of these artificial reproductive 
techniques have already been used globally as "infertility treatments" 
-- that is, these experimental living human embryos have been implanted 
into women with or without the intention of bringing them to birth. 
Often these experimental embryos are given oblique and obscure "names" 
to convince the woman that these experimental embryos are simply 
"reconstructed eggs", "balls of cells", "stem cells", or similar 
deceptive pseudo-scientific jargon. (How do women really know for sure 
precisely what is being implanted into them? So much for "informed 
consent"). What about the "inherent dignity" of all these living 
innocent women? Worse, certain laws and regulations, such as would be 
the case with Colorado Amendment 48, contain false scientific 
definitions so that /"what" the woman is carrying is not a human being 
/(at least until birth!), thus any anticipated abortions of these 
experimental embryos (needed for researchers' data) would not legally be 
considered as abortions; nor would the abortionists or the researchers 
be legally liable for performing abortions, or legally liable for any 
physical harms caused to the woman (e.g., tumors, etc.).

Further, the term "conception" has also already been legally defined as 
"implantation" in several state laws (see recent law journal article 
describing the "ambiguity" of the term "conception" in law, including 
the accompanying footnotes with specific state laws listed: Philip G. 
Peters, "The Ambiguous Meaning of Human Conception" Law Review: 
University of California, Davis, (2006) Vol. 40 (1):199-228, especially 
pp. 202-203, and footnotes #10, 11, 12, 13; and p. 215, footnote #55; at 
http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol40/Issue1/DavisVol40No1_Peters.pdf). 
If such language were to become law -- and then challenged, and 
successful -- such false science would then become legal precedent, or 
/stare decisis /(much as Roe, Webster and Casey have) -- that is, the 
courts would be legally bound to apply such false science to all related 
cases that came before them. If that happened, then it would be legally 
impossible to pass any laws or regulations prohibiting any kind of 
"therapeutic" or "reproductive" cloning or genetic engineering 
techniques, defined in any manner, including as listed above, because 
those asexually reproduced human beings would legally not even be human 
beings, much less human persons. And that would, ironically, include one 
of every two naturally occurring human monozygotic twin (etc.) conceived 
naturally /in vivo/! What a monumental boon that would be to those 
promoting the use of cloning and other genetic engineering techniques to 
produce living human embryos for both "research" and for "reproductive" 
purposes!

The term "fertilization/conception" also results in total confusion to 
lay prolifers and organizations, and subtly instructs them that those 
human beings NOT reproduced sexually are somehow not human beings OR 
human persons, including naturally occurring monozygotic 
twins/triplets/quadruplets /in vivo/! -- thus incapacitating their 
ability to correctly form their consciences and damage their moral 
decision making abilities.

Nor could anyone then apply such language to any cloning or stem cell 
debates in the public square (that is, if the stem cells are derived 
from cloned embryos) without abject self-contradiction. /One cannot 
simultaneously claim that all human beings are reproduced through 
"conception/fertilization" and that human cloning, human stem cell 
research (using cloned embryos), human genetic engineering used to 
a-sexually reproduced human embryos is immoral. /

So why does Colorado continue to insist on the dangerous phrase, "from 
fertilization"? Why don't they acknowledge the simple science that can 
be found in any library? Interesting question. Prolife needs to ask 
themselves -- and their "prolife" leaders -- precisely why such a 
ridiculous and dangerous mantra is being so irrationally forced upon 
them - under the pretense of "reversing Roe vs Wade"?

***************************************************************************

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08053007.html

    LifeSiteNews.com
    Friday May 30, 2008
    By Peter J. Smith

    Historic Chance to Defeat Roe v. Wade on the Ballot in Colorado

*Catholic Church in Colorado declares neutrality as resolute pro-lifers 
get ready to face abortion juggernaut*

DENVER, Colorado, May 30, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Colorado citizens 
will have an historic chance to vote into their constitution a proposed 
amendment that would define "person" in law to include any human being 
from the moment of fertilization and challenge the very foundations of 
the 1973 Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion throughout the United States.

Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman on Thursday approved Amendment 
48, entitled "Definition of a Person," after his office validated 
103,377 signatures, far surpassing the 76,047 required for the amendment 
to appear on the ballot in November. The petition drive was led by 
Colorado for Equal Rights, which collected more than 130,000 signatures 
with the help of 1300 dedicated pro-life volunteers.

The proposed amendment would add a new section to Article II of the 
Colorado state constitution which would read, "the terms 'person' or 
'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of 
fertilization." 
http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com/files/initiativetext.pdf 
<http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com/files/initiativetext.pdf>

The Colorado personhood amendment is the first of its kind in the 
nation, and an especially historic one, since Colorado, the first US 
state before Roe v. Wade to legalize abortion, now has a chance to be 
the first to establish the personhood of the human being from conception.

"Our strategy is that until you define the unborn child as a person, how 
can the laws protect them, when they can't even consider them a person?" 
Kristi Burton, 20, a spokeswoman for Colorado for Equal Rights and key 
leader behind the ballot initiative, told LifeSiteNews.

"Our goal in this campaign is to have a good positive discussion with 
the voters of Colorado about how every life counts, every life is 
valuable," said Burton. "What is the unborn child? Are they people? And 
if so don't they deserve the same rights as the rest of us?"

This concept of personhood is absent from US law and was the driving 
rationale behind the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion 
across the United States. If passed, the Colorado amendment would 
exploit a fundamental weakness in Roe that U.S. Supreme Court Justice 
Harry Blackmun admitted to exist when he wrote the decision.

Blackmun then had concluded: "If this suggestion of personhood [for the 
unborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, 
collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically 
by the [14th] Amendment."

"For the first time in 40 years of 'legalized' child killing, pro-lifers 
have moved an entire state to consider the God-given right to life of 
the unborn," stated Brian Rohrbough, president of American Right to Life.

Although Colorado for Equal Rights has run a very economical campaign so 
far, it is looking to muster greatly needed donations as the abortion 
industry masses a juggernaut of financial resources to defeat the 
initiative in this crucial phase of the campaign.

"The so-called 'Human Life Amendment' is dangerous and deceptive," said 
Protect Families, Protect Choice, a pro-abortion front group dedicated 
to defeating the measure, in a statement. "This amendment could make 
abortion illegal at ALL times, even in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. 
It could outlaw abortion even in the cases of rape, incest and when a 
woman's life is at risk."

"The amendment is so extreme it could even ban several common forms of 
birth control and prohibit in-vitro fertilization and lifesaving stem 
cell research."

However, while pro-abortion lobbies, including Planned Parenthood, 
marshal massive financial and legal resources from across the United 
States to defeat the proposed initiative, the state's largest pro-life 
organization, the Catholic Church in Colorado led by Denver Archbishop 
Charles Chaput, has opted to remain on the sidelines.

Although many Catholics have signed on the petitions, and over half the 
volunteers are Catholic, Chaput and the other two bishops of the 
Colorado Catholic Conference, have decided for the time being not to 
identify the Church with the proposed personhood amendment, nor devote 
its enormous spiritual and financial resources into procuring victory.

"We commend the goal of this effort to end abortion. Individual 
Catholics may choose to work for its passage. The bishops' spokeswoman 
Jennifer Kraska told the Denver Post in February. "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."

LifeSiteNews requested comment from Kraska, however none was received by 
press time on account of the consecration of James D. Conley as the new 
auxiliary bishop.

Burton, however, told LifeSiteNews that she and many other pro-life 
advocates, including the Thomas More Law Center, disagree and believe 
the time is ripe for a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade, especially at a 
point in history when the next appointment to the Supreme Court may come 
from a pro-abortion Democratic president.

"We believe that now is always the right time to do what's right," said 
Burton. "Martin Luther King, jr. said that, and he said it of the civil 
rights issue of his day, and I believe protecting the unborn child is in 
a way the civil rights issue of our day. It's never right to stand back 
and say 'well someday we'll get that done.' If it's right let's get it 
done now."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To visit and learn more about Colorado for Equal Rights and the
    historic personhood amendment:
    http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com/
    <http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com/>

    To read an abbreviated list of organized supporters including legal
    organizations, international/national/state pro-life groups and
    leaders, churches, businesses, and social and political leaders
    behind the Colorado Human Life Amendment:
    http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com/node/11
    <http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com/node/11>

    To respectfully contact Archbishop Charles Chaput
    Denver Archdiocese
    1300 South Steele Street
    Denver, CO 80210

    Phone: 303-722-4687

    Email: info at archden.org <mailto:info at archden.org>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See previous coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:

    130,000 in Colorado Sign Petition to Grant Full Legal Protection to
    Unborn Children
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08051402.html
    <http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08051402.html>

    Colorado Supreme Court Permits Embryonic Personhood Ballot Measure
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07111602.html
    <http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07111602.html>

    Colorado Pro-life Group Introduces Amendment Recognizing
    "Personhood" of Unborn Child
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jul/07072308.html
    <http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jul/07072308.html>URL:
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08053007.html
    <http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08053007.html>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PFLI PharmAid Center
pfli at pfli.org <mailto:pfli at pfli.org>
PO Box 1281
Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA
800-227-8359
www.pfli.org

PFLI supports pharmacist rights of conscience NOT to be forced to 
dispense or counsel for chemicals which violate their sincerely held 
religious, moral or ethical beliefs.  For more info see:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq

*** PFLI is the only pharmacy association which is exclusively pro-life.
It represents thousands of pharmacists and many lay supporters
in the USA, Canada and all around the globe. For membership info, key
PFLI texts, PFLI archives, late-breaking news, abridged newsletter excerpts
or general information, visit the PFLI web site at http://www.pfli.org.
Or e-mail us at mailto:pfli at pfli.org.

*** We do NOT send out SPAM. To subscribe to PharmFacts E-News, just 
send an e-mail with the word
"subscribe" in the subject area;  to cease your subscription (although 
we can't
imagine anyone would!) just send an e-mail with "unsubscribe" in the 
subject area, or
manage your account at: http://pfli.org/mailman/listinfo/pflienews_pfli.org

*** You may contact PFLI at any/all of the following: Pharmacists For 
Life International,
PO Box 1281, Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA,  1-800-227-8359 [US & Canada only],
 +1-740-881-5520 [voice] or +1-707-667-2447 [fax]; e-mail us at 
mailto:pfli at pfli.org.

*** You can order our publications as well as begin/renew your 
membership right on our
website at http://www.pfli.org. Click on the "PFLI Store" link on the 
toolbar and
follow the prompts! There you can also donate to PFLI as well as 
purchase a wide range of publications. 

* *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20080602/247aa00b/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14952 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20080602/247aa00b/attachment-0002.jpe 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: s1a1.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 30621 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20080602/247aa00b/attachment-0003.jpe 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 2923 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20080602/247aa00b/attachment-0001.gif 