News Abortion

Like a Bad Horror Movie, “Egg-As-Person” Ballot Amendment Back In Colorado Again. And Again.

Robin Marty

Personhood Colorado makes yet another go at establishing full rights of "personhood" for  fertilized eggs.

In horror movies, the monster is never dead the first time you slay it.  It always makes one last return to terrorize everyone before it has to be put down again.  And in really bad horror movies, it will come back a second time, too.

Personhood Colorado is now officially hitting bad horror movie monster status.

Despite two failed attempts to obtain full legal rights for a fertilized egg, the group is doing a third attempt at gathering signatures to get a law on the ballot for 2012.

Via Yahoo News:

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

The 2012 Colorado Right to Life amendment, also known as Amendment 62, would define a person as every human being, regardless of the method of creation. A human being, as defined in the proposed amendment, is a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development. The amendment also seeks to define a child in Colorado to include a human being prior to and during birth.

* The amendment would prohibit the intentional killing of any innocent person. It would prohibit birth control and in vitro fertilization that kills a person, and “no innocent child created through rape or incest shall be killed for the crime of his or her father.”

The last time the amendment was on the ballot it was so unpopular that it managed to drive more voters to the polls to defeat it, making Colorado one of the few states to not vote in a Republican majority.

News Politics

Personhood Colorado Files Lawsuit to Put Egg-as-Person Amendment On 2012 Ballot

Robin Marty

The movement to grant legal rights to fertilized eggs is demanding a chance to still get their amendment on the 2012 ballot.

The Colorado Secretary of State has said that Personhood Colorado did not obtain enough valid signatures to put a third amendment granting legal rights to fertilized eggs on the 2012 election ballot. Personhood Colorado disagrees, and they have filed a lawsuit asking for the signature issue to be resolved in time for November’s election. They argue the group wasn’t given sufficient opportunity to address what the Secretary of State’s office said were thousands of invalid signatures which disqualified the amendment from appearing on the November ballot.

Personhood Colorado spokesperson Jennifer Mason told One News Now:

“They had discounted, as far as we can tell, about 7,000 valid voter signatures, and they’re claiming that we missed the ballot by 3,800,” she reports. “So, we believe we have definitely more than enough ballot signatures to appear on the ballot, and we are essentially just demanding our legal rights.”

The state also provides a curing period, which is really an extension to get the needed signatures. But that did not apply to the personhood campaign.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

“We were denied a curing period at all. Every other amendment had an extra 15 days to make up lost or dismissed signatures. In addition to that, we actually had a month less of petitioning time than any other initiative in the state,” Mason explains

Personhood Colorado is certain that they have been denied their rightful place on the ballot. 

“The Secretary of State’s actions unconstitutionally deprived us of our fundamental right under the State and Federal Constitutions to the initiative process which is core political speech,” explained Gualberto Garcia Jones, J.D., legal analyst for Personhood USA in a recent press release. “After being denied the same timeframe that every other initiative received, and denied the opportunity to appear on the ballot, we have filed a writ of mandamus to ensure that our rights are recognized and the hard work of our volunteers is not dismissed.”

Although Garcia Jones cites the Secretary of State’s actions in his press release, Jennifer Mason doesn’t believe that Republican Scott Gessler himself acted maliciously or tried to keep them off the ballot. She told Rewire via email:

I don’t think it’s likely that it was intentional on the part of the SOS. It is more likely that they were just swamped with signatures. We turned in over 112,000 this year, with less time, which is far more than the 79,000+ we turned in in 2010.

This may be one of the few topics on which Mason and Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains agree. Contacted via email Cathy Alderman, Vice President of Public Affairs responded:

We don’t question the motivation of the secretary of state’s office and believe the office followed the appropriate rules and regulations for signature review and sufficiency declaration.  We do believe that Colorado voters, elected officials, and candidates have seen that this dangerous measure is out of step with their values and are less willing to support it or assist with getting it on the ballot.

Unlike most of the rest of the country, Colorado saw a large upswing in Democratic voter turnout in the 2010 election. According to the Weekly Standard, “Turnout in Colorado actually swung from +1 GOP in 2008 to +5 Democratic in 2010, a 6-point move that’s 13 points at odds with the national flow in this election.” The Weekly Standard attributed the swing to lack of strong Republican candidates for governor. But there was also an extremely close, extremely contentious senate race at the time, one that was only decided by about 15,000 votes.

The Democratic governor won with 51 percent of the vote. The Democratic senator won with just 47.7 percent, less than one tenth of a percent over his Republican rival. “Personhood,” meanwhile, lost three to one

Did the “egg-as-person ballot” encourage Democratic voters in the state to get out to the polls when in other states they appeared to have stayed home? Mason finds that unlikely.

I definitely don’t believe that there is data to support any claim of Personhood increasing democratic voter turnout, particularly considering that there was a split Republican ticket with the addition of Tancredo in 2010.

Even if there was an increase in Democratic voters, we had a huge increase in yes votes in 2010, compared to 2008, so all that would tell us is that personhood votes are independent of Republican Party turnout – we know that many of our voters are Republicans, but many are Independent as well.

The attempt to establish the “personhood” of fertilized eggs hasn’t received nearly the popular support among conservatives in 2012 as it did in 2010, a sign that even the GOP may be ready to see the issue laid to rest. At least two prominent GOP politicians who supported the movement during 2010 have decided not to endorse it this go around. Now, with the odds against the lawsuit being resolved quickly enough to make a difference in 2012, it looks as though no candidates will be forced to take an uncomfortable stand on either side.

News Politics

On The Third Attempt to Pass Egg-as-Person Legislation in Colorado, Former Supporters Shy Away

Robin Marty

Personhood Colorado may not believe the voters don't want to give legal rights to fertilized eggs, but the politicians do.

Unless there is are massive numbers of bad or duplicated signatures, the voters of Colorado will once again be deciding whether or not to grant full legal rights to fertilized eggs. Personhood Colorado believes that the voters are ready to pass the amendment this time, pointing to the fact that they have gathered more signatures than necessary and with even less time to do it.

But if they think that means the people of Colorado are “pro-fertilized-egg-as-person” this go around, they are the only ones. Even their old supporters are starting to back away from them, saying the people have already spoken.

Via the Denver Post:

This time around Joe Coors, now a Republican candidate for the 7th congressional district, will not endorse the personhood initiative, which would ban all abortions in the state, the campaign told the Post Wednesday.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

“After its two failed attempts on the ballot, Coloradans have made their decision on this issue,” campaign spokeswoman Michelle Yi said. “Joe respects the voters’ decision and, for the next 90 days, will continue to focus on ideas to get our economy back on track by helping job creators start new businesses and expand their payrolls.”

Coors originally donated to the Personhood movement he is now shunning. Will other Colorado politicians do the same? 

The Rocky Mountain Media Watch writes:

[T]he political ramifications of the personhood amendment should continue to be a key part of the coverage. The amendment, which would ban all abortions and some common forms of birth control, is clearly of interest to women, in particular, and women are a key voters in Colorado elections.

Personhood supporters have yet to hear from Rep. Mike Coffman and Rep. Cory Gardner about whether they will endorse their amendment this year, as they did in 2010, Personhood USA legal analyst Gualberto Garcia Jones told reporters today.

Garcia Jones said they’d welcome their support again, as they would any candidate, Democrat or Republican.

“To me, they’d be shooting themseves in the foot, if they backtracked,” said Colorado Right to Life Vice President Leslie Hanks. “It would be their loss.”

The official signature count will be released in early September, and it will be interesting to see if Republicans as a whole embrace or reject the initiative for 2012.