Desperate Attempts

The proponents of Amendment 48 sent an op-ed to their mailing list. In it they ask a few questions and offer some incomplete answers. You can find the full text here.

A question from the proponents of 48 campaign:

The Personhood Amendment defines person in the state constitution as beginning at the moment of conception. If it's true that human life begins at conception, is there any way acknowledging that truth can 'go too far'?

A. Yes, their amendment goes too far.

Without laying out the effects of their amendment, the proponents deceive voters of their true intent to illegalize all forms of birth control. It is no secret that they are back at it again, trying to undermine women’s struggles to gain equality and control over their persons by getting into your bedroom. By including eggs from the moment of fertilization as legal persons in their amendment, the effect is an all-out and sweeping attack on women’s rights.

Their amendment goes too far. It is shifty and deceitful.

More from the email:

If the (opponents of 48) simply pick up any dictionary and look up 'person', they will find the definition: 'A human being.' That's what it's meant for the last several centuries.

This is simply not true. The legal definition of person is here. It is easy to see why legal definitions are appropriate to law, scientific definitions are appropriate to science and cultural definitions are applicable only to a culture. There is a lot of overlap but in cases of morality, such as is the argument the proponents make, science is not appropriate to refer to for moral guidance and legal nuances are not scientifically measurable. Amendment 48 is a subjective moral definition in law.

Everyone I have spoken with about the effects 48 would have goes round and round with infinite scenarios of varying severity. This amendment brings up too many unanswered questions to which the proponents refuse to answer.

Remember your rights.

Vote no on 48