Jim Stillman
Nevar
Birth control pills, IUD, IVF -- all abortions?
September 15th 2009 16:58
Proposed Florida Constitutional amendment would bar birth control pills?
A new corporation was formed in Florida, Personhood Florida, Inc., on June 30th, 2009, by Brenda L. MacMenamin of Port St. Lucie, Florida. Its stated purpose is, according to its charter, “the pursuit of a comprehensive strategy to educate policy makers, the media and the public about civil rights and other matters of public concern.”
Sounds general and who could object to educating the media and public about “civil rights”? The problem is that the only “civil rights” that this group cares about are those of the unborn. Once a child is born and on its own, it’s on its own. Personhood Florida is the statewide manifestation of part of the pro-life, anti-abortion movement that is being organized in about 25 states by the American Life League, a Stafford, Va.-based group that supports stricter abortion laws across the country.
The Florida proposed amendment reads,
Last year, Colorado voters rejected a proposal which would have defined a fertilized human egg as a person. Similarly, voters in Montana, Oregon, Georgia and Mississippi had rejected like proposals. This year in Montana and Colorado, like in Florida, backers are instead pushing a proposal that refers to “the beginning of the biological development of that human being.” The result would be the same.
All abortions would be barred because, under that definition, the “beginning of the biological development” would include fetus, embryo and zygote. While this is the position of the Catholic Church and others, it is no means that of most others. Also to be banned, according to Personhood Florida and the American Life league would be all forms of stem-cell research and in vitro fertilization clinics because of the failure of the latter to bring each fertilized egg to actual birth.
To a majority of Americans, the absolutist position of this extremist group is unacceptable.
The prime sponsor of Personhood Florida is the American Life League of Virginia which would make illegal all abortions, all, with no exceptions for health or even life of the pregnant woman, rape, incest, fetal abnormality, fetal viability, or any other reason.
The problem or at least one of them with the definition that is suggested for Florida and elsewhere, is that all forms of birth control, other than condoms but including pills and IUD’s would result in an illegal abortion.
The road to enacting this proposed amendment is a rocky one, indeed. Broward County (Florida)’s Sun Sentinel noted,
The American Life League is active and recognized as having rigid positions, ones that would be ludicrous if they did not offer a patina of rationality. The League has accused the Disney organization for inserting sexually oriented material in its cartoons; for example the League promoted, for a while until it was made the punch-line of jokes, that, “Teenagers, take off your clothes!” was buried in the Aladdin soundtrack.
There is, and should be, no objection from anyone following his or her conscience or the precepts of his or her faith. The free exercise of religion is one of our most sacred (or secular) rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. But the free exercise that is guaranteed is that of each individual. It does not allow the doctrines of one faith, regardless of how strongly held, to be imposed on others who are not. That is the beauty and strength of a pluralistic society. It is also a brake on absolutist positions.
To an Orthodox Jew or a devout Muslim, the eating of pork is anathema; it is a sin. This would not justify a statute banning the sale of bacon or the serving of pork chops at a local restaurant. The Jew or Muslim may refrain from pork products and no governmental official can force them to eat them; a person in prison must be allowed to follow religious dietary dictates. By the same token, a person who believes in the religiously motivated positions of the American Life League is not to be forced to abandon those beliefs. But, as they say, the freedom to swing one’s hand stops just short of my nose.
There are other consequences of having “personhood” start at the beginning of development. If a fetus has all of the rights of a person who has been born, then anyone who causes that fetus harm or endangers the potential person should be criminally liable for child endangerment, manslaughter or homicide. So if a pregnant woman willfully refuses to take pre-natal vitamins or drinks alcohol or smokes, shall she be prosecuted? All of these activities can cause harm to the potential child. Will we punish the seller of cigarettes to a pregnant woman?
It seems that all ramifications need to be explored.
Some months ago, SL Bradish and I exchanged views on abortion and the law. This “debate” was removed from this site. If anyone is interested in a relatively calm exposition of our opposing positions, I respectfully direct readers’ attention to
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
A new corporation was formed in Florida, Personhood Florida, Inc., on June 30th, 2009, by Brenda L. MacMenamin of Port St. Lucie, Florida. Its stated purpose is, according to its charter, “the pursuit of a comprehensive strategy to educate policy makers, the media and the public about civil rights and other matters of public concern.”
Sounds general and who could object to educating the media and public about “civil rights”? The problem is that the only “civil rights” that this group cares about are those of the unborn. Once a child is born and on its own, it’s on its own. Personhood Florida is the statewide manifestation of part of the pro-life, anti-abortion movement that is being organized in about 25 states by the American Life League, a Stafford, Va.-based group that supports stricter abortion laws across the country.
The Florida proposed amendment reads,
The words “person” and “natural person” apply to all human beings, irrespective of age, race, health, function, condition of physical and/or mental dependency and/or disability, or method of reproduction, from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.
Last year, Colorado voters rejected a proposal which would have defined a fertilized human egg as a person. Similarly, voters in Montana, Oregon, Georgia and Mississippi had rejected like proposals. This year in Montana and Colorado, like in Florida, backers are instead pushing a proposal that refers to “the beginning of the biological development of that human being.” The result would be the same.
All abortions would be barred because, under that definition, the “beginning of the biological development” would include fetus, embryo and zygote. While this is the position of the Catholic Church and others, it is no means that of most others. Also to be banned, according to Personhood Florida and the American Life league would be all forms of stem-cell research and in vitro fertilization clinics because of the failure of the latter to bring each fertilized egg to actual birth.
To a majority of Americans, the absolutist position of this extremist group is unacceptable.
The prime sponsor of Personhood Florida is the American Life League of Virginia which would make illegal all abortions, all, with no exceptions for health or even life of the pregnant woman, rape, incest, fetal abnormality, fetal viability, or any other reason.
The problem or at least one of them with the definition that is suggested for Florida and elsewhere, is that all forms of birth control, other than condoms but including pills and IUD’s would result in an illegal abortion.
The road to enacting this proposed amendment is a rocky one, indeed. Broward County (Florida)’s Sun Sentinel noted,
The amendment faces extremely long odds. First, supporters must gather 676,811 signatures to make the ballot -- by Feb. 1, to go before voters in 2010.
And Florida has a 60-percent threshold for constitutional amendments to become law, a very difficult hurdle even for less radical ideas. In Colorado, the only state where the "personhood" amendment has appeared on the ballot, voters overwhelmingly rejected the idea by an almost three-to-one margin.
Even if adopted by voters, the amendment runs counter to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that held the U.S. Constitution grants women the basic right to an abortion. Another ruling, the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, specifically held that birth control was protected under the constitution's right to privacy
And Florida has a 60-percent threshold for constitutional amendments to become law, a very difficult hurdle even for less radical ideas. In Colorado, the only state where the "personhood" amendment has appeared on the ballot, voters overwhelmingly rejected the idea by an almost three-to-one margin.
Even if adopted by voters, the amendment runs counter to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that held the U.S. Constitution grants women the basic right to an abortion. Another ruling, the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, specifically held that birth control was protected under the constitution's right to privacy
The American Life League is active and recognized as having rigid positions, ones that would be ludicrous if they did not offer a patina of rationality. The League has accused the Disney organization for inserting sexually oriented material in its cartoons; for example the League promoted, for a while until it was made the punch-line of jokes, that, “Teenagers, take off your clothes!” was buried in the Aladdin soundtrack.
There is, and should be, no objection from anyone following his or her conscience or the precepts of his or her faith. The free exercise of religion is one of our most sacred (or secular) rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. But the free exercise that is guaranteed is that of each individual. It does not allow the doctrines of one faith, regardless of how strongly held, to be imposed on others who are not. That is the beauty and strength of a pluralistic society. It is also a brake on absolutist positions.
To an Orthodox Jew or a devout Muslim, the eating of pork is anathema; it is a sin. This would not justify a statute banning the sale of bacon or the serving of pork chops at a local restaurant. The Jew or Muslim may refrain from pork products and no governmental official can force them to eat them; a person in prison must be allowed to follow religious dietary dictates. By the same token, a person who believes in the religiously motivated positions of the American Life League is not to be forced to abandon those beliefs. But, as they say, the freedom to swing one’s hand stops just short of my nose.
There are other consequences of having “personhood” start at the beginning of development. If a fetus has all of the rights of a person who has been born, then anyone who causes that fetus harm or endangers the potential person should be criminally liable for child endangerment, manslaughter or homicide. So if a pregnant woman willfully refuses to take pre-natal vitamins or drinks alcohol or smokes, shall she be prosecuted? All of these activities can cause harm to the potential child. Will we punish the seller of cigarettes to a pregnant woman?
It seems that all ramifications need to be explored.
Some months ago, SL Bradish and I exchanged views on abortion and the law. This “debate” was removed from this site. If anyone is interested in a relatively calm exposition of our opposing positions, I respectfully direct readers’ attention to
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
| 43 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
