Stanek weekend question: Thoughts on first-ever passage of personhood amendment?
March 22 was historic for the pro-life movement. Quoting Huffington Post:
North Dakota became the first state on Friday to pass a fetal personhood amendment, which grants legal personhood rights to embryos from the moment of fertilization. The state House of Representatives voted 57 to 35 to pass the amendment, after the Senate passed the same measure last month.
The measure will now appear on the November 2014 ballot [JLS note: governor did not need to sign], and voters will be able to accept or reject it. If it passes, it will amend North Dakota’s constitution to state that “the inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected.” The amendment would ban abortion in the state, without exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother….
There was another first, most encouraging. According to LifeSiteNews.com:
Every major pro-life organization in North Dakota has joined forces to defend and endorse SCR 4009, including North Dakota Family Alliance, North Dakota Right to Life, Concerned Women for America North Dakota, North Dakota Life League, North Dakota Catholic Conference, and Personhood North Dakota.
In the past certain pro-life groups, such as in Colorado, have been unhelpful to personhood initiatives, for instance, as reported by LifeNews.com:
During the 2008 and 2010 amendments, major pro-life groups including Focus on the Family, the state’s Catholic bishops, [NRLC affiliate] Colorado Citizens for Life, National Right to Life, Americans United for Life, Eagle Forum, and others either took a neutral position on the amendment or supported it but did not expend significant time or resources fighting for it because of the potential negative legal ramifications.
Interesting that North Dakota Right to Life is not only an NRLC affiliate but also the home group of NRLC president Carol Tobias, pictured right.
One goal of personhood proponents is to “bait” the U.S. Supreme Court. From USA Today:
“We are intending that it be a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, since (Justice Antonin) Scalia said that the Supreme Court is waiting for states to raise a case,” said the sponsor, Republican state Sen. Margaret Sitte.
This is because, according to WND.com:
Personhood plans declare that an unborn baby is a person from the moment of conception, relying on a statement by Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade.
“If this suggestion of personhood is established,” Blackmun wrote, “[The abortion] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the amendment.”
Since 1973 significant medical and scientific advances, such as ultrasound and visualization of human fertilization under a microscope, have been made.
Pro-lifers opposing personhood initiatives say they have counted noses, and the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court is not currently on the side of life.
So, what are your thoughts on all of this? Do you think the time for such an amendment is wrong or right? Do you think this is good or bad strategy?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
That’s the problem …the Supreme Court. Could someone please tell me who the pro lifers in the S court are?
Sorry screwed up that post….my coffee was brewing ..gotta wake up the mind.
I’m curious about ectopic pregnancies and how they are addressed. In such cases, the life of the mother is seriously threatened and there is no solution except removal of the child. Further, the danger of the ectopic discovery may require immediate action.
I have no doubt regarding the personhood of the child, however if both are going to die, then it is better to save one than to lose both. Since we have no medical transplant options and an ectopic child is not developed sufficiently to deliver as a premie, then a salpingotomy is morally okay under the principle of double effect – that in attempting to save the life of the mother, the child will die. This is not an abortion per-se, but a life-saving operation for the mother. In such cases it is not elective and handled properly is moral.
Any amendment that disregards saving the life of the mother will likely fail to pass because an ectopic is a no-win life and death situation. With medical advances, other situations are not as dire, but can also be tenuous.
One doesn’t have to disregard personhood to realize morally grave consequences. For instance, if a person in a deadly situation had two lives to save, but could only save one, we don’t hold that person accountable for the lost life.
Any amendment should at least acknowledge the realities child-bearing raises.
An ectopic pregnancy is an example of surgery would be required to save the life of the mother.
The baby can’t survive and the mother would die.
Hi Chris,
Heather is correct. Our opponents often use ectopic pregnancy for its emotional appeal to people who are misinformed on the subject, or aren’t even certain what an ectopic pregnancy is. I would challenge any of them to point to situations pre-Roe where women were left to die in hospital ERS because state law forbade surgery on ectopic pregnancies.
Having worked in Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals for over 30 years, I can assure you I have never seen any woman allowed to die or any situation where everything necessary wasn’t done to save the woman’s life.
Thanks to better diagnostic techniques, EPs can be diagnosed earlier and more accurately. Surgery can be performed so as to preserve the Fallopian tube for future pregnancies. That isn’t to say emergency situations don’t arise, such as rupture and hemorrhage. Thankfully, we are better able to diagnose the woman before it gets to that point.
I agree adamantly that we must always have the life of the mother exception. To not have it is handing our opponents a gift and giving them the best ammunition they could ask for. In the perfect world the mother’s life is never at risk, in the real world there are tragically situations that may call for making life and death choices. The premature delivery of little Josie Duggar is one such example. It was necessary to save her mother’s life. Thankfully she lived, but her life was placed in jeopardy to save her mother’s. The result could well have been fatal. A few weeks earlier it likely would have been.
We can argue the intention is not to kill the baby but save the mother. Its academic. The point is you are taking the baby’s life, or risking it, to save the mother’s. Call it what it is.
Strengthen R v Wade or eliminate it. At some point, the final line needs to be drawn so that everyone knows where things sit and where the focus should be.
Removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not considered an abortion.
Bobby Bambino would call it The Principle of Double Effect I believe.
Hi Carla,
Some might call it an abortion. What we call it is academic. Its the termination of a pregnancy to save the mother’s life. I have seen fetuses that were still living when removed from the Fallopian tube.
EGV,
Even pre-Roe there was never a “final line”. States made their own laws and these varied. I don’t know how one could “strengthen” Roe. I see it as becoming slowly obsolete.
The mothers I know who have had ectopic pregnancies would never call it an abortion. I think THAT is important. I stayed on the phone for an hour with a friend as she cried and told me she couldn’t go through with the removal because she didn’t want to have an abortion. I told her it wasn’t. Her life was in danger, Her little one would not grow in her fallopian tube and had to be removed.
Yes. I know some babies are still alive when they are removed. How heartbreaking for parents. How difficult these situations are.
I get what you are saying Mary. :)
Do you think this is opening some can of worms? I think that whatever case makes it to the Supreme Court is a very good thing. Challenge the “law of the land!!” And with only one mill in ND it is a good place to start.
PS
I played frisbee on the lawn of that capitol as I grew up. Ah good ol ND. :)
The proaborts are hoping that we simply give up and go home and sit down and shut up.
Not gonna happen. There are more and more prolife bills be written and passed then ever before!!
My local paper gave the text of the bill as:
“The inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be protected.”
Wouldn’t treating an ectopic pregnancy that an embryo has no chance of surviving protect the mother’s right to life, as specified by this bill?
I’ve only heard objections to the bill based on religion, anyway (based on letters to the editor and quotes from Dem senators).
Good point Kate. Chris A, would Kate’s interpretation satisfy your concern over ectopic pregnancy?
Hi Carla,
I commend your support of a friend going through this trauma, and the connotation of the word “abortion” could only add to her distress. Actually it is a medical term, though we are very careful of its usage around patients. A miscarriage is medically a missed abortion or incomplete abortion, but of course we don’t use that terminology around patients and their families. Very easy to see how it could be misunderstood and the problems that could result. Your reassuring your friend she had no other options and this was a decision that was not hers to make is important.
Miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy are heartrending. I’ve seen women stay in denial of fetal death until it was at the point of putting their lives at risk.
Opening a can of worms? Frankly I hope it doesn’t get to the Supreme Court. Whatever they would rule, Roe will continue to die a slow death. More abortion clinics won’t open up because of a SC ruling. More doctors won’t want to do them. Just let Roe die a slow death in the states, as it seems to be now. New York was an abortion mecca before Roe. The states always have, and will continue, to make their own laws.
I’m with Carla. This law passing is nothing short of awesome. YooHoo South Dakota!
Hi Kate,
To me the issue of ectopic pregnancy has always been a no brainer. I can’t even understand why its an issue. There is simply no other option to save the woman’s life.
It has great emotional appeal for our opponents who want to scare the public, and for people with little knowledge of ectopics and what they entail, it works.
”YooHoo South Dakota!”
As much as we all love South Dakota, I think you meant North Dakota in this case.
I agree that, morally, removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not the same as a regular abortion. I worry about how this bill is worded, though. And while it is rare, I certainly don’t believe that if a woman’s life is at risk that she should be forced to continue with her pregnancy.
Another thing I worry about is that there are so many ways to derail this as it’s written. I’m no lawyer, but I can imagine that some wackjob taking it on him/herself to discriminate against a woman of childbearing age by not letting her, say, buy liquor, for example, because she might be pregnant. I wonder what would happen in a case like that.
Basically, I’m against this as written, both as a woman and a pro-lifer. There has to be a better way to go about it.
No one has the crystal ball, we do not know the affect of the law if passed and upheld by SCOTUS except to say that in ND at least abortion would be outlawed. Having said that it would be great if SCOTUS did as in 1973 and use the occasion to make a sweeping assertion regarding abortion, but this time in favor of life.
Mary is correct. I know of no Catholic teaching or hospital that does not default to the life of the mother. I am basing my opinion on the line-up of pro-life organizations favoring the law that includes those closest to the situation. If they do not see a problem with the language re life of the mother than surely there must be protections.
YooHoo North Dakota!!
“YooHoo North Dakota!!”
That’s more like it!
It might be that, like some here, those who wrote the bill did not think of an ectopic pregnancy as an abortion. It might also be that they did not want to make an exception in the bill for the life of the mother because that can be and often is understood to mean almost anything that might cause the mother the slightest stress or inconvenience.
Still, I am concerned that this might cause the bill not to pass when brought to a public vote. It might have been wise to make a specific exception for an ectopic pregnancy, though it might be somewhere in the full text of the bill, as I haven’t read it.
Nevertheless I think this bill is a good thing and I hope others like it will follow in other states.
North Dakota. The state with the lowest unemployment and the highest respect for life.
Hi Roxy,
Your concerns could cover just about every law that’s written. None are perfect, none satisfy everyone, and always some “wackjob” will take it upon his/herself to interpret it as they see fit.
Our opponents love these scare tactics and will play them for all they are worth. What if? What if? What if?
Certainly pre-Roe laws were not perfect, not everyone agreed, and they were not uniform. That applies to about every state law on the books. You mean I can go to jail because I had one drink at dinner and got pulled over?! That’s absurd!/No that’s protecting innocent people.
No matter what we won’t always be satisfied, but I see it as an important beginning.
Hi Victor,
I think your concern is very well founded. This won’t pass without an exception for the life of the mother and is just giving our opponents ammunition to shoot ourselves with.
Maybe wording it so that it specifies the mother faces a physical risk and this is medically documented.
“the inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected.”
That’s EVERY human being, folks. The mother has an inalienable right to life as well.
This isn’t going to outlaw abortions where a mother’s life is in danger. Just as policemen are authorized to use lethal force when a perpetrator is endangering the lives of others, I can’t believe that doctors won’t be authorized to end a pregnancy when it endangers the life of the woman. It might make some extra paperwork for the doctor, to justify that the abortion was necessary, but as long as doctors aren’t trying to cover over completely elective abortions by calling the mother’s life at risk, there shouldn’t be a problem.
What you can expect to see here, though, is that the pro-choice movement will bring forward lots of marginal cases. Expect to see lots of sob stories about women in truly tragic circumstances over the next little while.
Way to go, ND!!!! I hope the people of that state rally and vote in favor of this bill; however, with more than 18 months before the vote takes place, PP and other anti-life groups have lots of time to spread false info about the amendment just like they did in CO and MS.
Also I’d like to point out the huge problem with the desire to include a “life of the mother” exception–this feel-good line can be veeeery loosely interpreted to include a mother’s stress level, mental state, potential for depression, financial situation, etc. It’s a loophole that can and will be exploited. And as others have already pointed out, even without including such language, no hospital is going to just let a woman die! Abortion is never a cure for any pregnancy problem, although delivering the baby often helps for conditions like pre-eclampsia or hyperemesis.
Hi Roxy,
I stand corrected.
I overlooked your concern about the exception for the mother’s life and like you I have very serious concerns about that as well. Having seen situations where tragic decisions must be made to protect a mother’s life by aborting her fetus, I can see that this essential, I don’t care how rare it may be. Also, the emotional appeal it has to work on behalf of our opponents is another concern.
Hi Mary – I’m addressing what was reported in the Huffington-Post article regarding no exceptions, including life of mother. You can call it whatever you want, but that particular point will be the hinge-pin of any campaign against the amendment. That’s my point. And if you missed it, you’ll note I referred to salpingotomy and not the salpingectomy and I do know the difference and the details. The general public will not – nor will many care to spend time educating themselves. You can call it academic all you want, but it will be spun as “abortion” if it can be used to defeat the amendment.
Carla – if you read the content of my post, you’ll note I mentioned the Principle of Double Effect. Bobby Bambino and I, as well as Gerry Nadal have had long conversations on these issues. I too, do not consider it an “abortion” in the elective sense, but the devil is in the details and is guaranteed to distort the issue.
Kate – Of course the life of the mother is protected, but if the amendment wording itself isn’t sparkling, radiantly clear on this issue, it will be leveraged by pro-aborts. Clearly the author of the Huffington-Post article attempted to spin it as such. I’m well aware of the historical laws, and what the actions of doctors would be, but the ignorance of the electorate lately has been astounding.
I’m a little bit surprised so few of you actually read what I posted before responding.
With over 2000 pages of intense vague legalese, ObamaCare was rammed through and the details of that monstrosity will plague everyone for years, yet pro-aborts (progressives/statists/utopianists) will distort the hell out of plain simple language in both existing law and proposed law to get their way. Lately, there are many representatives across the United States that do not understand the plain and direct wording found in the Second Amendment “shall not be infringed”.
Don’t kid yourselves – this fight will be vicious – similar to the crap Wisconsin saw.
Hi mrsJVR,
As I suggested to Victor, the mother’s condition can be specified as a physical risk and the risk must be medically documented. Also, you can have a situation like what occured with little Josie Duggar where the child must be taken early to save the mother. This can be fatal, but sadly is a risk that may well have to be taken. Certainly laws can cover these exceptions.
Read the text of the bill, folks, don’t rely on the Huffington Post for their spin. The bill does NOT specifically ban abortion. The bill says that all humans have a right to life. The talking point here is that the mother has the right to life as well. This will not ban abortions when the mother’s life is at risk.
Hi Chris,
Thank you but I read your post and I’m sorry if I misinterpreted your point. We definitely agree on it being essential that a life of the mother exception be passed.
To me ectopic is a complete no brainer. Its a pregnancy termination to save the life of the mother, period. We can call it what we want. Also my comments were being more generally made and not necessarily in response to what you were saying.
Hi Melissa,
Good point. But believe me, our opponents will play any lack of exception for the mother’s life for all it is worth, and I fear very successfully.
Thx, Mary,
Then we just have to keep to our point that the mother’s life is absolutely protected here, because everyone has the inalienable right to life. Hard cases make bad laws, and you don’t make laws around the hard cases–you make exceptions for them. The principle here that we are defending is that everyone has the right to life. Put the abortion advocates on the defensive. Ask them, “Don’t you think that all human beings should have the right to life? Don’t you think the unborn child’s life has value too?” They will try to evade. Don’t let them. Make them answer the question.
Hi Jerry 12:49PM
The SCOTUS can wave a magic wand but its not going to stop the slow death of Roe. There will still be only one clinic left in ND and MS. There will still be state legislatures answering to the people and passing laws against clinics that pass legal scrutiny. There will still be medical personnel that won’t work in clinics. The dinosaurs like Hern, Carhart et.al will slowly die out and it doesn’t look like anyone is standing in line to replace them, or any other retiring abortionists for that matter. I think Roe is being slowly destroyed by a thousand cuts, much like our opponents feared it would be.
No problem, Mary!
And I’m just trying to point out that no matter how we all interpret this from an ideological stance, the law itself, and how it’s interpreted by courts might be entirely different.
I worry that this one, as written, might be too vague to be of much use until medical science has progressed further. What’s the earliest you can even detect a pregnancy these days? Six days by blood test? The more vague a law, the easier it is for someone to fight it. And anti-abortion that I am, I would fight against someone who tried to discriminate against me because I’m of childbearing age.
Hi Melissa,
Again, our opponents will latch on to this and play it for all it is worth, and very successfully. I support exceptions when there is a documented medical reason. I would consider that very reasonable.
Anyway Melissa, I remember pre-Roe, and it was just a given that the mother’s life was protected. People didn’t stand around a hemorrhaging women asking what state law was. However, the emotional appeal of no exception is what people will respond to, and its the gift that will keep on giving for our opponents.
Exactly Roxy,
The courts AND the public.
No exception for the life of the mother can result in us losing in the Supreme Court and the court of public opinion. I consider it a very reasonable exception, frankly a no-brainer.
So we cut them off at the pass.
They will spin the way they always do……..
WOMEN WILL DIE IN THE STREETS! PROLIFERS WANT TO KILL INNOCENT WOMEN!! THEY HATE WOMEN! THE WAR ON WOMEN!! HANGERS, HANGERS AND MORE HANGERS!! BACK ALLEY ABORTIONS!
We gather our thoughts and butt heads with them with the truth. Which is on our side.
Hi Carla,
In a word….yes!
Of course they will resort back to their Greek chorus tactics, that ‘s why we better not give them any more ammo. All they would need is this one magic bullet and they will win the war.
If this is ‘giving them ammo’ then I’ll be happy to load one in the chamber.
Mary,
If multiple states passed something like this would that be like the pro-aborts getting automatic weapons and clips? Bring it on.
Hi ts,
I’m afraid I don’t understand your point.
The left has been tying things up in court and dragging battles through the courts that have no chance of winning in the end. And it has worked greatly to their advantage. The Illinois Parental Notification of Abortion law in Illinois has been on the books since 1995 and still has not gone into effect cause the left has tied up in the courts even though other states have won these same battles in the SCOTUS already. The pro-life side ‘tactic’ of waiting to only pass legislation that they think will stand up to the Supreme is failing us.
I don’t quite see why this is so “historic” for the pro-life movement. We still have to win the uphill battle to get the votes by next November. Some things to note:
– Ectopic pregnancies and life-saving abortions probably won’t be an issue. Lethal force is currently permitted in North Dakota as self-defence. If we use an example, Ireland made a very similar amendment to its constitution. However, Irish women aren’t dying of ectopic pregnancies. Of course, these facts won’t stop the amendment’s opponents from claiming that it will in fact “force women to die” from ectopic pregnancies (which is something pro-lifers will have to deal with if they want the votes).
– Some people illegally buy alcohol for minors, but that doesn’t stop adults from getting it. The same could be said about women of childbearing age. So this isn’t likely to be a serious issue. But once again, abortion proponents will argue that it is.
I do, however, have my own concerns:
– If I understand right, what personhood backers like to call the “Blackmun Hole” requires personhood to be established at the federal level. So a state level personhood amendment can’t be used to successfully challenge Roe.
– The text of the amendment actually does not define “human being” or make specific reference to the unborn child (the Irish amendment doesn’t have this problem). From a purely legal standpoint, one could just as easily argue that the unborn are not human beings.
– A personhood amendment wouldn’t address the bodily autonomy argument, which Justice Ginsburg is very sympathetic to.
– If pro-lifers haven’t learned their lesson about hormonal birth control from the Mississippi vote (which I fear they haven’t), they almost certainly won’t win this time. Ditto for the life of the mother case.
Hi ts,
By “magic bullet” I’m referring to there not being a specific life of the mother exception and PL people opposing it or considering it unnecessary. This will destroy any chance the PL movement has in the court of public opinion. Like it or not, right or wrong, fair or unfair, emotional appeal works, and our opponents have their Greek choruses rehearsing.
Also legalities are what they are. Without the proper legal language and protections, we can kiss goodbye to whatever chance we have. Unfortunately our legal system is such that state and federal judges of certain political persausions can tie up legislation to their heart’s content.
So we need to keep them busy. Keep firing so to speak. This legislation coming from one state is good. From two states would be better. And from three better than two. Etc etc etc. The very same language that protects the life of the mother also protects the life of the unborn. Like Melissa said previously; make them come and argue what part of protecting either of their lives they disagree with. Both are deserving of protection. That is what this law is all about. I am not saying this is the perfect law or that it has all the best amendments possible contained within it. I am saying it can only be positive that we have a state full of people who believe unborn life deserves protection. And if you want kill unborn children in North Dakota you are breaking the laws of their state. They should leave it in effect and tie it up in state courts for twenty years like the left does. I have nothing but good things to say about this law.
This is a funny way of baiting the Supreme Court. They’re not going to revisit a subject they’ve already ruled on in recent memory unless there’s a significant disagreement between multiple circuit courts (a “circuit split” in judicial parlance). If this amendment somehow manages to survive both the federal district and circuit court, at best the Supreme Court would likely either send the case back to the circuit court and tell them to reconsider or issue a summary judgment knocking it down entirely. The big fat SCOTUS trial/circus where you roll out dozens of pictures of aborted fetuses and get a ruling enfranchising fetuses under the 14th Amendment is a fantasy that’s not going to happen.
Hi ts,
Yes “keep firing” so to speak but some things had better be in black and white and not assumed, or all your efforts and good intentions will be for naught.
It won’t be for naught. If it gets knocked out then you adjust and try again. You will never take all the necessary steps if you are afraid to even take your first step.
Hi ts,
I see I’m not going to get you to understand that certain legal T’s have to be crossed and I’s dotted. Yes I wish laws could be passed that suit me to a “T” but its not going to happen. We have to go for laws that will work and that will pass legal challenge. We have to realize that public opinion does matter. We may have to swallow some bile and accept a workable compromise. It will never be all or nothing in our favor.
I don’t think this literally is a serious issue, but it does show that this amendment, as written, has a lot of grey areas. And it won’t necessarily be just the abortion proponents arguing; the courts will too if it’s a badly written, vague thing. Write it properly or don’t even bother.
I see what you mean, truthseeker, about having to start somewhere, but I disagree that this is the place. I think this will very easily be struck down and that it would actually be bad for our movement if it is. Like trying to quit smoking, the more times you fail, the worse your perception is of the process. We don’t want the public to see us failing time and again. I could be wrong, but I think that would draw more hostility to this cause and make people wonder, “Why do they hate women?”
Frankly, I don’t see what this would accomplish that a ban on abortion, with an exception for the life of the mother, would not. Is there really anything practical when we can’t currently even detect that conception has happened until almost a week later? This strikes me as more of a “feel good” thing than a practical, enforceable law.
Mary, you also shouldn’t oppose laws just cause they don’t suit everybody to a “T”.
Hi ts,
I see I’m just going in circles here. I like you very much so I’ll just leave it at that.
Hi Roxy,
Very well stated. Thank you.
I like you a lot too Mary. I don’t like you any less just cause you don’t support this bill. You are full of thoughtful posts.
Hi ts,
I didn’t say I don’t support it!
I have concerns about an adequate exception for the life of the mother.
Mary,
Suppose this actually does go through all the hurdles and is passed into law. In order to challenge that law, abortion advocates actually need a case. What that means is that they need for a doctor to refuse a woman in need of an abortion the said abortion, have her suffer damages, and then publicly come forward with her story.
And then, there are a couple of options. Should the doctor and hospital settle the case, then that creates, in legal precedent, an exception to the rule: abortion is generally illegal, but, in cases where the woman is suffering an ailment such as this particular woman suffered, then it is permissible. The courts can either create an exception to the rule, or strike down the law completely. It really depends on the judges. I’m Canadian myself, so I’m not completely up on how the courts and appeals process works in the States. But given that prolife sentiment is obviously very strong in North Dakota, I think a North Dakota judge would be more likely to make an exception to the rule, rather than strike down the law completely. And then the case would go no further, and the abortion advocates would have to come up with another case to try to chink away just a little bit at the law.
But as for right now, I think the strongest prolife strategy would be to go after the opponents of this particular amendment. Think of it this way. The vote was 57-35. That means that 35 politicians on North Dakota DON’T think that all human beings have a right to life. Ask them to justify why some humans shouldn’t have the right to life.
The life of the mother exception is totally not required in my opinion. I believe the mother’s life is already protected in law and will always be. Legally, adding an exception just provides possible loopholes for who-knows-what kind of abortions.
I really can’t stress this enough that the exception for the life of the mother is simply a ploy by the pro-abortion side to create fear in and division amongst pro-lifers. Many countries that are prolife have not needed such an exception. Prior to 1973, America didn’t require one either.
I agree that the devil is in the details – so don’t add details when they are not necessary. More laws don’t protect the Mom or the Baby – they just cause Doctors to be more tentative because in their attempt to add clarity they simply add confusion and headaches.
These questions are not academic either. However, the medical community is aware of what constitutes protecting the life of the mother and the preborn baby. In my opinion, I believe the mother’s life is and will continue to be legally protected by the same “personhood” law that we hope will protect the preborn baby. If that “personhood” law is not good enough for the mother why are prolifer trying so hard to extend to the preborn baby?
As for the timing of whether this amendment should be passed I say who really knows. But if it passes it seems the Holy Spirit thinks it the right time. I don’t think it is our place to worry too much about the timing of these things. We have hope and faith that God will make things work out for the better. Who knows what will happen or how the Supreme Court will decide or even when it will go before the Supreme court.
This is one reason that surgery is required to save the life of the mother. My friend had a rare condition called HELLP…they had to take her to an emergency surgery to deliver the baby and Austin only lived about 5 hours. But if there are other conditions I’m unaware . But oh fiddle stix pro aborts need all the help they can with saving the life of the mother. 6000 aborted a day in the US ? All health of the mother and rape? NAH!!!
I got into a debate at work with a pro abort i happen to like. She exclaimed “Im sorry but no rape victim should ever have to carry a baby to term. That’s just cruel “!! I asked her “Okay then explain a woman on her 13th abortion then.” She stumbled and bumbled around a little and then said “yeah well that’s insane too.” She’s going to nursing school so I pointed her to Jills site as well as a few more. She was really upset so I had to diffuse the situation a bit before she calmed down.
Every major pro-life organization in North Dakota has joined forces to defend and endorse SCR 4009, including North Dakota Family Alliance, North Dakota Right to Life, Concerned Women for America North Dakota, North Dakota Life League, North Dakota Catholic Conference, and Personhood North Dakota.
Certainly many women are acti ve in these organizations…this is why there surely must be protections for women in this legislation.
Hi Melissa,
I highly doubt that without an exception for the life of the mother, it will even get to first base. It also won’t pass the court of public opinion.
I can’t understand why this is even an issue. Put in the exception since its there anyway. What’s the issue? Don’t put it in and I promise you have given our opponents the silver bullet.
Hi Jerry,
I would be willing to bet there are protections as well. These people are politically saavy and will cross every “t” and dot every “i”. They will also be well attuned to public reaction. I really don’t see what issue anyone would have with this exception. The fact it exists doesn’t mean people will find every excuse to use it, especially if medical documentation is required and more accurate diagnostic testing is available than has been in the past.
Hi Tyler,
For reasons I have already elaborated on, put the exception in. Believe me, nothing is giving our opponents more satisfaction than seeing this even debated. Given better diagnostic techniques and medical documentation than in the past, loopholes will not be so easy.
I have no doubt the mother’s life will continue to be protected as it always had, but I promise our opponents are rehearsing their Greek choruses to tell an uninformed public otherwise.
OK, you win, no exception, the people vote the law down convinced PL people don’t care if women die. You’ve accomplished what?
Sorry folks there has to be some give and take here and this exception is very little give and a huge take for us.
I see trouble in paradise on this bill:
http://gerardnadal.com/2013/03/23/the-legal-ethical-and-tactical-challenges-of-north-dakotas-personhood-amendment-part-i/
Mary,
It has passed through the House already. Believe me, it would not pass through the House if there weren’t significant support for it on the ground. Representatives are more concerned about winning their seat again at the next election than they are about upholding integrity.
This bill does NOT ban abortions. That is Huffington Post spin on it. And I’m pretty sure the majority of the residents of ND aren’t taking their talking points from Huffington Post. It simply says that all human beings have the integral right to life.
This is North Dakota. The bill wouldn’t have a hope in Hades of passing in New York or California. But it has a very, very good chance of passing in ND simply because the state is very prolife, and the opinions of abortion advocates aren’t given much weight there.
I’d pay more attention to local papers in ND rather than listening to Huffington Post if you want to have a good idea of what the local scuttlebutt on this is.
FWIW Germany already has this law as part of its constitution, and its supreme court ruled that the gov’t could use discretion in its enforcement. If Germans can use discretion, Americans can, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany
Hi Melissa,
I don’t think the Huffington Post is worth the powder to blow it to the devil so I obviously don’t read it.
Remember that voters still have to decide on it and this is where our opponents can make their play, whether it specifically bans abortion or not. Ultimately it will. If as Jerry points out these RTL organizations are satisfied with the bill, I find that reassuring.
My hat is off to the North Dakotans.
May God continue to bless them.
If Germans can use discretion, Americans can, too.
North Dakota is no Germany.
We start with saving one child at a time, always hoping to build momentum. But any law that protects a child that would otherwise be lost to abortion is a good one. Glad the ND legislators passed this one, and hope many states follow suit. Yes, HOORAY!
I’ll leave the overturning of Roe to the better legal minds. But my prayers are that it’s death comes quickly.
Actually my girlfriends condition had to do with hrr platelet count. I believe the condition mimics eclampsia and when her platelets began to drop an emergency c section was required. I believe its called HELPP…and she was told she would die. She required blood transfusions and the baby lived a few hours. Her BP shot up ss well. This and an ectopic pregnancy are really the only 2 conditions I’ve heard of that would endanger or kill the mother.
Sorry for the typos ..perhaps an ob nurse can expound….University Hospital is pro abortion but they encouraged “Kathy” to allow the baby to die saying he probably wouldn’t live long anyway and should he he would have a multitude of health problems. She decided to let him go. To make matters worse she had taken pics of the baby and her grandmothers dog chewed up the camera chip beyond repair. sigh how awful .
While EVERYONE should applaud the sentiment and the nobility of the measure’s goals, we have to be wise about it. Luke 14:28 says that if a man is going to build a house, doesn’t he first “count the cost”? Are we counting the cost of what will happen if a (currently) pro-abortion Supreme Court strikes down this law, federal or not? Since the late 60’s the modern Life movement has fought to protect children and mothers from abortion’s deadly effects. If a personhood law is found to be unconstitutional, it would be stunningly devastating to the cause of Life. Everything the left has fought for in the quest for the Equal Rights Amendment would be fulfilled instantly. No law against abortion would stand. Full funding for abortion on demand. No waiting periods, no consent or notification laws, no limits. Is that a GOOD ENOUGH BET that we are there yet? You’d better be darned sure. We are saving many lives now — can we be positive that impatience is not tempting us to move too fast when our legal system will not support our passion? And don’t give me some immature “if God is moving us to do this now, how can we say no?” He gives us wisdom to be strategic. We DO NOT live in a theocracy. If you are not willing to do the day-to-day work of winning hearts and minds, you shouldn’t let your haste make waste.
After the death of my friends son we became closer. Shed had an abortion about 2 months prior to this incident. She was given versed but woke up hysterical …not from physical pain but guilt. She said “I will never ever have another abortion .” She already had one living child and didn’t feel able to cope with another baby. Shed cheated on her long term boyfriend and she was afraid he’d find out. After the tragic loss of her son she called me and said ” I feel this was my punishment because of that abortion.” What a terrible way to have to feel…guilt and shame. I tried to comfort her but at that time she just couldn’t /wouldn’t see it any other way.
“Full funding for abortion on demand. No waiting periods, no consent or notification laws, no limits.”
Dave, How do you get from this law being struck down to full funding for abortion on demand?
I am happy to share that she is pro life now and we ended up pregnant with our kids at the same time. She said Guess what? I’m pregnant” and we were both jumping for joy when I said “I’m pregnant too” She gave birth to a baby girl in mid April and I gave birth April 20Th of 2010. Also her first child and my second daughter had the SAME birthday….just different years!7
Corrective note regarding Principle of Double Effect concerning ectopic pregnancies: the proper full surgical procedure is the saplingectomy – the removal of the damaged fallopian tube. It’s fairly clear this procedure doesn’t specifically target the child.
A salpingostomy is an invasive reconstructive procedure which can directly target the child, but usually has the end goal of maintaining the fallopian tube. The problem with this approach is such intentions can be unclear. The other problem is that salpingostomies have a higher ectopic recurrence because the conditions which cause the ectopic were never removed, and new scarring may also add to the problem.
Both procedures may employ a salpingotomy – an incision of the tube itself, depending upon the circumstances.
I don’t think the legislation is meant to tie the hands of surgeons, but the surgical procedures themselves are not as simple as many would like them to be.
truthseeker, because many legal scholars believe that if Roe is seriously challenged, it will be the equal protection clause that the pro-abortion majority will rely upon to uphold Roe. If that bears out, it will force the courts to see the right to any abortion at any time as irrefutably and undeniably sacrosanct. Therefore, no limitations ever.
Many supporters of the Personhood legal strategy mistakenly interpret Justice Blackmun’s words in the Roe decision. He wasn’t contemplating the prospect of personhood making the Texas law constitutional. He was MAKING FUN OF IT. If personhood were to survive, it would necessitate a direct constitutional change/amendment that clarified the 14th Amendment’s definition of “personhood”. Or the Court would have to declare that interpretation. There is NO WAY the current Court will even come close to a majority doing so. And, with Obama appointees in the future, it will be even more troubling.
Dave are you pro life?
Heather, I’ve been active in the pro-life movement for the last 20 years+
Hi again Mary,
Yes, the voters still have to pass it, but it must have lots of support in the public, otherwise it certainly wouldn’t have passed the House. Abortion advocates certainly will have a go at it. That just means that prolifers have to be vocal about their support for it. Who do you think North Dakotans are more likely to pay close attention to: the abortion advocates or the prolifers? We’ve got the winning arguments on our side.
FTR, this is the first personhood amendment that I have really been behind. I’ve been (at the best) lukewarm about the other ones.
Dave nice to meet you and good for you!:)
No Dave it would legally recognize that all human life has value and is worthy of protection.
truthseeker, I understand what you are trying to say. Life has value and is worthy of protection despite what the law says. We are on the same page as far as truth is concerned.
However, no state law or state-level constitutional amendment can change the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution. ONLY the Supreme Court’s interpretation OR a FEDERAL, RATIFIED, OR SUPERMAJORITY-PASSED Congressional Constitutional Amendment can change it. We cannot “wish” it to be so. That is the way the founders set it up. We can cry about it, we can deny it, we can ignore it. But that is the way it is. Sorry.
Dave,
This particular amendment is really ingenious. It doesn’t directly challenge the 14th amendment. It doesn’t define embryos as persons. What it does is create a whole new category: human beings.
And abortion advocates can’t just willy-nilly challenge this law in court. They need a case to do so. What that means is that a woman who is directly, negatively affected by this law needs to come forward and be wiling to go through litigation in order to challenge it. How many North Dakotan women would be willing to undergo that ordeal, when they can simply cross the state line into Minnesota and have their abortion done there?
Once a law is passed, it is up to the courts to definitively interpret it. Will a court in ND overturn it? That remains to be seen, but I doubt it.
I also like the law cause it gives unborn children with down syndrome protection from extermination?
And don’t give me some immature “if God is moving us to do this now, how can we say no?”
Dave, are you saying that you think it is immature for somebody to follow what they feel God is moving them to do? As a Christian and a God fearing person I see it as a sign of maturity if somebody looks to God for guidance.
Hi Melissa,
I’m glad to hear of the support the bill has and of course I hope that in November voters support it.
I can only promise you that our opponents are getting ready, and emotional appeal is their best weapon. November is a long ways away. I’ve seen them do this too many times. Even when laws made exceptions for the woman’s life they howled that they didn’t, and their toadies in the media went right along. Look at the Huffington Post. Already its making this claim. You and I may not read it, but other people do.
I’m just warning the PL folks had better be ready and not be so rigid about allowing this exception. We can’t assume the public understands anything and we can’t give our opponents this advantage.
Hi Dave 10:41PM
Welcome and thank you for your perspective.
Hi ts,
I think Dave is pointing out that no matter how noble our intentions, they can backfire on us big time and this is what he is warning us about. Sometimes one is wiser to quit while they are ahead. He’s given me a perspective on this that I never thought about and maybe we better think very seriously about.
Being that we already have one turncoat on the Supreme Court, I’m not encouraged and I take Dave’s advice very seriously.
I think it is very interesting timing with my film being birthed this Spring. We’re planning to tour with the film and hope to bring it to North Dakota.
I think it is very interesting timing with my film OPEN MIND EYES HEART being birthed this Spring.
Dave, Any idea what year you expect you will have all your ducks in a row so that you would be comfortable with legislation that protects all human life? How long would you have me be submissive to the pro-aborts?
Mary, not pursuing this legislation would be like Lincoln not pursuing emancipation legislation because of the havoc it could bring upon the slave community.
ts,
If you check you history Lincoln was very politically saavy and knew how to wheel and deal to get what he wanted. He knew when, and when not, to act.
Historians debate the Emancipation Proclamation and what truly motivated it, or what good it even did. Some argue Lincoln only wanted to give a “moral” purpose to an immensely unpopular and horrific war.
I don’t think this literally is a serious issue, but it does show that this amendment, as written, has a lot of grey areas. And it won’t necessarily be just the abortion proponents arguing; the courts will too if it’s a badly written, vague thing. Write it properly or don’t even bother.
It could be argued that the text should be clearer (ie including something along the lines of “nothing in this amendment applies to life-threatening pregnancies”). But including too many of these statements could quickly cause it to become messy and convoluted. It would also cost the support of some pro-life groups, as Gerard suggested in his blog post. We really have what seems like a no-win situation.
“Writing it properly” depends heavily on the courts interpreting the law. As hippie pointed out, Germany allows not only abortion to save the mother but also elective abortion in the first trimester even though the constitution holds that the right to life begins at conception.
Frankly, I don’t see what this would accomplish that a ban on abortion, with an exception for the life of the mother, would not. Is there really anything practical when we can’t currently even detect that conception has happened until almost a week later?
The thinking is that a personhood amendment would be able to challenge the basis of the Roe v. Wade decision (fetuses are not persons), while a ban on abortion would just be immediately struck down as unconstitutional. A personhood amendment might also end destructive embryo research.
This strikes me as more of a “feel good” thing than a practical, enforceable law.
It’s hard not to agree with this sentiment. I hope you’re wrong of course :)
“Hi Victor,
I think your concern is very well founded. This won’t pass without an exception for the life of the mother and is just giving our opponents ammunition to shoot ourselves with.
Maybe wording it so that it specifies the mother faces a physical risk and this is medically documented.”
Mary, I think such wording would have to be very specific to ectopic pregnancies and any other rare instances where clearly the only way to save the physical life of the mother. Otherwise the whole can of worms is opened again, with “physical risk” meaning anything the doctor decides it can mean.
With a clear and specific exception for the life of the mother, the bill likely has a good chance of getting to the SCOTUS. However, I’m not optimistic about what will happen to this bill or any pro-life bill once it gets there. A lot of prayer certainly won’t hurt.
I do share the concerns of some here that a bill like this could backfire, especially without an exception for the life of the mother.
Legislative efforts certainly have their place, but I believe the key is pro-lifers being personally active in pro-life work with those who might be considering abortions, as well as those who participate in performing abortions.
Thanks for pointing that out, Navi. I’ll cop to not being very knowledgable about the US Constitution.
And I really hope I’m wrong too about this amendment not helping!!
Educate the people. The law does not take away the a woman’s health protections so exceptions should/would not be included.
Hate to be the fly in the ointment but I think Dave is correct.
When a law as ‘basic’ as this one, folks need to know how it ‘fits in’ with the legal code, and not just be popular. As it stands, people assume all rights and privileges are inalienable begin at conception, and are retained throughout life. Soon very soon, PL folks will find challenges to their sacred ideology. It will come because of the extension of healthcare to America’s poor. There will be calls: ‘can we afford it? ‘can we afford to be broke/penniless? can we afford to wait and wait while our doctors tend to these new-others? will quacks become the new-norm of the US medical system, as they attempt to fill in for a ‘professional’ LABOR SHORTAGE?
Hi Victor,
One can hardly name all the possiblities where you may face a life and death situation with a pregnant woman. There are medical aberrations. There are decisions that must be made instantaneiously.
I think an exception for the life of the mother, with medical documentation and the fact we have far better diagnostic techniques than we did pre-Roe when states had this exception, would provide the necessary protections.
If the law is so basic then people should be able to easily understand what it does and does not do.
It seems to me that humans already have ‘basic’ rights. But these ‘rights go unprotected … ie. sex-selection, disability and race-related abortion; and abortion-of-the-poor (abortion vis Medicaid). The question becomes, does non-protection exist because there is a loophole saying humans are not the same as ‘persons’ (legally). We now have humans >>> persons at birth. We never speak of person ‘rights’ like property ownership, but these are HUMAN beings with HUMAN rights. There is absolutely no need to change, the law. Just enforce what is already there. Even Reality acknowledges the HUMANITY and LIFE of those to-be-born. He also demands sentience and person-hood. Both are not-required.
We have THIS PROBLEM THOUGH – THE LEGAL CHALLENGE of people WITH .the ‘right to life’ … can they be forced-into-active-military-service? can body-autonomy be used for euthanasia or doctor-assisted suicide?
I would like to see Texas take up an amendment like this. They know how to deal with the legal gymnastics of the left. Tell them to shove it.
christiannews.net/2013/03/14/texas-senate-committee-approves-bill-to-expel-planned-parenthood-from-public-schools/
All laws breed some level of mistrust between people - so, in my opinion, the fewer laws the better. We need people to internalize the 10 commandments let alone the bill of rights, or the massive amounts of legislation and regulation that is annually spewed out by government beucracies. As soon as someone can show me the person who has mastered the 10 commandments I will agree to creating new laws. In my opinion, the personhood amendment does not create new law, it simply removes existing bad law.
Although, the other side can quote “specific applications” that may appear troubling on the surface we should not go wobbly and try to get to fancy with this law. It has been my experience to notice that when humans try to create something “ideal” (law or society) they usually make something worse.
I would also say that the prolife side doesn’t need to get everything, or every possible scenario, worked out right now. The level of detail being considered at the moment is a bit misleading and anxiety driven. Most of these ancillary issues can be worked out on a case-by-case basis – which will create better and more tailored solutions anyway. I think the most important thing to do right now is to simply ensure that North Dakota laws begin protecting the preborn immediately. North Dakota courts can the work out any problems, if any, later.
The eighth amendment of the Ireland consitution wasn’t an exception amendment for the mother, it was the amendment to protect the preborn.
I believe Roe was about determining whether the Texas state law with respect to abortions was unconsitutional.
Ginsburg’s fetish with the bodily-autonomy (‘BA’) argument is a non-sequitor at the moment since the BA argument was not the argument used to justify abortion by the SC. They find the right in the penumbra of the amendments – they found amongst the ”privacy” provisions in certain amendments, the 9th and 14th if I remember correctly. Secondly, the bodily-autonomy argument is simply a pure power play from a legal, scientific, and truth stand point. The BA simply asserts, by pure muscle, that the Mother’s rights trump the preborn baby’s rights. BA rests on no scientific facts, or at least, no scientfic facts that can’t be equally applied to the preborn baby (who must, logically and scientificyally, also be said to have BA).