The 2010 Colorado Fetal Personhood, Amendment 62 is the second time an aborted related issue has appeared on a ballot (Amendment 48 2008). The difference between the two ballots is that the 2008 defined a person as “any human being from the moment of fertilization” and the 2010 defined a person as “every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being” fertilization. Their reason behind altering the phrase is to clarify the definition of a person. Colorado Personhood director Gualberto Garcia Jones sites how the new lettering “accounts for human beings created through asexual reproduction.” Aside from accounting for asexual reproduction, the message is virtually identical. However, according to the spokesperson for ‘Colorado Right to Life’ and ‘Personhood USA’, the 2010 campaign will be better funded, better able to articulate their message, introduce a measure that’s more accurately worded.
Personhood Colorado recently released a radio ad were fetuses are compared to American slaves. Various critics claimed the ad was laughable and it neglected to explain Amendment 62 to an electorate that already rejected fetal personhood in 2008. In other words, their was no additional information provided that wasn’t included in the Amendment 48, which means the same failing result will likely ensue.
Amendment 62’s strategy relies heavily catholic and protestant churches, a parallel from the Amendment 48. Also, they are reiterating the notion of ‘person’s are not property’. There is a huge issue regarding this claim, A. its virtually the same message from 2008, just presented in a more aggressive fashion and B. the ‘person/property’ hasn’t yet been exposed to the world. Which begs the question, how can you classify them as a person? The Protect Families Protect Choices Campaign released an ad stating “in 2008, voters learned that the definition of a person amendment was an overt attempt to insert religion into law. We will fight once again to make sure Coloradans know the truth about Amendment 62.” In order to counter this statement, Amendment 62’s strategy must include something new that was not in Amendment 48. Organizations opposing Amendment 62 include the Coalition for Secular Government, National Advocates for Pregnant Woman, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, and the Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights.
Groups opposing the amendment claim “it eliminates a woman’s right to make personal, private decisions about her body and her health and it invites politicians, lawyers, and the courts into the relationship between a woman and her doctor.” Pro Choice people claim if enacted, the amendment will alter 20,000 Colorado statures and forbid abortions in all cases regardless of the health of the mother, incest, or rape. They also claim “it will end scientific studies and industries” and that women may lose various forms of birth control and become partially liable for complications during pregnancy.” Jones claims these conclusions are exaggerated. By saying their “exaggerated,” she’s admitting it’s partially true. The pro-choice campaign is going to have to come up with something to counter this if they wish to see Amendment 62 enacted.