Thread: Oklahoma court rejects personhood ballot initiative (because they aren't lunatics)

I am glad we have competent judges that see this for the travesty of justice it really is. It's sort of funny that this whole personhood thing is coming from the right. Aren't they the ones that threaten that legalizing gay marriage will mean people will want to legalize marrying animals, rocks, etc etc. Wouldn't granting personhood to a fetus mean people will end up wanting to grant it to couches, and chairs, and animals and rocks? Slippery slopes can go in both directions.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...84000H20120501

Oklahoma court rejects ballot initiative on "personhood"

(Reuters) - The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Monday struck down a ballot initiative that sought voter approval of a so-called "personhood" amendment to the state constitution to define an embryo as a human being from the moment of conception.

The ballot question would have asked Oklahoma voters to expand the definition of a human being to include a fertilized egg. But the state's highest court said the proposed constitutional amendment was "void on its face" because the U.S. Supreme Court already has decided the issue.

Passage of a personhood law or constitutional amendment would have the effect of banning abortion in the state, both supporters and critics have said.

"The measure is clearly unconstitutional," the court said in its decision.

The ruling marked the second major defeat in Oklahoma this year for the personhood movement, which wants full legal rights accorded to human embryos from the moment of conception.

A personhood bill passed the Oklahoma state Senate in February but the state's House of Representatives refused to bring it to a vote last week.

The petition was challenged in court last month by the Center for Reproductive Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union and local abortion rights groups.

"This amendment would have run roughshod over the fundamental, constitutionally protected reproductive rights of all Oklahoma women," said Nancy Northrup, president and chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Supporters of the personhood drive were trying to gather 155,000 signatures of registered voters within 90 days to place the amendment on the November election ballot. No one from the Tulsa-based organization immediately responded to a request for comment.

Similar initiatives were successful in placing personhood questions on the ballot in Colorado and Mississippi, but voters in those states defeated the amendments.

Originally Posted by Junkieturtle

Wouldn't granting personhood to a fetus mean people will end up wanting to grant it to couches, and chairs, and animals and rocks?

No.
Every once and awhile I do get amazed by the stupid questions I see on this forum. This certainly rates up there!

I wonder if supporters of personhood bills are aware of the radical beliefs behind them. They would criminalize abortion without exception for birth control, rape, incest, ectopic pregnancy, and even the life of the woman.

"A life of the mother exception to any abortion law would be a violation of the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"
http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/...ississippi.pdf

Originally Posted by Cady

I wonder if supporters of personhood bills are aware of the radical beliefs behind them. They would criminalize abortion without exception for birth control, rape, incest, ectopic pregnancy, and even the life of the woman.

"A life of the mother exception to any abortion law would be a violation of the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"
http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/...ississippi.pdf

I doubt it is true. You can certainly legally kill another person, even born person, if he/she is a direct threat to your life or health. Its killing in self-defense in such case.

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

I doubt it is true. You can certainly legally kill another person, even born person, if he/she is a direct threat to your life or health. Its killing in self-defense in such case.

It's from the Personhood USA literature.

5. Should personhood legislation include an exception which allows abortion in order
to save the life of the mother?

A life of the mother exception to any abortion law would be a violation of the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because other classes of people are not given that same kind
of exception. For example, there is no exception to the laws against murder which would allow a
doctor to kill one member of a set of conjoined twins in order to save the life of the other. The
doctor is legally required to attempt to save the lives of both twins until such a time as one of
them dies in spite of his efforts, and then he is to continue to devote all of his energy to saving the
surviving twin regardless of which one it is. The same application can be made to the unborn
child and the mother. The goal of the law in such situations must always be to save both.

Originally Posted by Cady

It's from the Personhood USA literature.

Reference the material and your statement regarding your personhood literature post.

I believe the opinion that holds the bill would require a mother-to-be to die is inaccurate.

Doctors used to take an oath to do no harm, maybe some still do?

Members of the medical service are taught that there are two (sometimes more) patients when you are dealing with an expectant mother.

If mother doesn't survive the child would not, in most likelihood, survive. At that point (expectant mother's life is or would be in jeopardy) a surgery would take place to save the life of the mother and her unborn child. The difference being the child wouldn't be killed outright, if the child doesn't survive the child's death would not have been the objective, simply an outcome of an effort that fell short.

Originally Posted by DixNickson

Reference the material and your statement regarding your personhood literature post.

Those are referenced in post #3 and #5

I believe the opinion that holds the bill would require a mother-to-be to die is inaccurate.

I didn't intend to specify any particular legislation, but rather the beliefs held by Personhood USA. The Mississippi Personhood initiative had no exceptions. I am not familiar with text of Oklahoma's initiative, but personhood initiatives are usually written in intentionally vague language which would require extensive analysis should the initiative pass. Please read the entire Personhood USA manual that I linked to in post #3. The organization has presented mostly religious justifications for disallowing abortion for any circumstance.

Originally Posted by Cady

Those are referenced in post #3 and #5



I didn't intend to specify any particular legislation, but rather the beliefs held by Personhood USA. The Mississippi Personhood initiative had no exceptions. I am not familiar with text of Oklahoma's initiative, but personhood initiatives are usually written in intentionally vague language which would require extensive analysis should the initiative pass. Please read the entire Personhood USA manual that I linked to in post #3. The organization has presented mostly religious justifications for disallowing abortion for any circumstance.

Very interesting. I'm still unsure that their intent is ever to kill the mother, if only because it would most certainly affect the health of the child if not cause the child's death. This is not their mission. Some very interesting arguments and positions. Have you read it in its entirety?

Do you think you could ever think of a child in the womb, at any point of the child's timeline of development, as a human life?

Originally Posted by DixNickson

Very interesting. I'm still unsure that their intent is ever to kill the mother, if only because it would most certainly affect the health of the child if not cause the child's death. This is not their mission. Some very interesting arguments and positions. Have you read it in its entirety?

In most cases, the intent of anti-abortion law is not to protect the zef, but to punish the woman for choosing to have sex. This is revealed in several ways, one of which is exception in anti-abortion law in the case of rape, the reasoning being that the woman didn't choose to have sex conferring acceptability to abortion. Other means of revelation are arguments that "the woman caused the zef to be there", "she put the zef there", etc., meaning that the woman is at fault for the existence of the zef, so she must suffer for it.

Do you think you could ever think of a child in the womb, at any point of the child's timeline of development, as a human life?

"A human life" is very vague, the entity in the womb IS human and alive, as are the egg and sperm which formed it. While the womb inhabitant is human life, it is not a "child", a "child" is a human life between birth and adolescence. Some definitions include adolescents as "children."

Originally Posted by DixNickson

Very interesting. I'm still unsure that their intent is ever to kill the mother, if only because it would most certainly affect the health of the child if not cause the child's death. This is not their mission.

I don't think their mission is to kill women, but neither do I believe their motivation is reverence of life. Many of the so-called pro-lifers are also pro-war, anti-environmental protection, and anti-universal health care.

Some very interesting arguments and positions. Have you read it in its entirety?

I read it some time ago, and I found it appalling. What arguments did you find convincing?

Do you think you could ever think of a child in the womb, at any point of the child's timeline of development, as a human life?

I think of it as a potential child, alive and human. Based on arguments I have heard, I would not likely change my mind. People have been known to change their position, however. In the 70's, evangelical leaders were not particularly opposed to abortion, but by the mid 80's, they were radical pro-lifers. What brought about that change?