►
Victory or defeat? State the case for personhood
by Judie Brown
Released November 29, 2007
Commentary by
Judie Brown
On
any given day in the world of media headlines, one can find at least one
erroneous statement that absolutely must be refuted. In fact, one might venture
to say that if a studious person were to examine the statements uttered by
media personalities, he or she could become a recluse consumed with the
full-time task of refuting mainstream media. That is precisely how egregious
the situation is, especially for those working to communicate the simple point
that a human being is a person whose life begins at the beginning.
Sounds
simple enough, I know. Yet, in fact, the agenda of the most influential talking
heads, newspaper editors, academic whiz kids and even many of our friends is to
avoid admitting the fundamental fact that life begins at fertilization. A
glaring example of the problem became evident with the Associated Press’
November 13 headline: “Court Clears Way for Egg Rights Showdown.”
Search
that headline on the internet and you will see what I mean. It was repeated
everywhere from Alaska to Maine and, as if the denigration of the embryonic
child’s identity were not enough, the AP story further fans the culture of
death’s flames to ignore what abortion truly does to a human being.
All
the brouhaha came about when a single state Supreme Court ruling allowed
Coloradans to propose a ballot initiative that would protect the innocent as
persons under the state constitution.
The
language is simple enough: “Section 31. Person defined. As used in sections 3,
6 and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms ‘person’ or
‘persons’ shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.”
So,
why all the fuss? Clearly, we are facing the same onslaught of rhetoric that
defeated a 2006 Michigan initiative and took the wind out of the sails of those
struggling for the same goal in Ohio. It will be tried in Georgia where a
similar measure is being pursued, though pro-life leaders like Dan Becker of
Georgia Right to Life and Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center are fully
prepared to make their case in the court of public opinion. In addition,
Montana state representative Rick Jore has introduced a personhood amendment to
the state constitution.
Clearly,
pro-life activists will not be deterred, including the people of Colorado for
Equal Rights. Lies never succeed in dampening authentic pro-life spirit.
I am
not so sure about all of our friends.
Perhaps they are the ones who bear watching with scrutiny. It’s easy to defend
truth when dealing with opponents like the Associated Press writer who thinks
about a female’s egg and somehow conjures up a vision of eggs in a gunfight at
the OK Corral. That verbal tactic is simple to expose: If a reporter does not
use the words “embryonic child” or “preborn person,” the public will never
think about who dies as the result of abortion. That is, after all, the goal of
the culture of death: dehumanize, disregard, dismiss and deny. The four Ds are
the stock-in-trade of those who pander to the culture of abortionists.
But
it’s not so simple when fellow pro-lifers get into the fray and oppose an
initiative like the one in Colorado.
The
contrast is remarkable. Kathryn Wittneben of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado accused
the proponents of the ballot initiative of making every abortion illegal. This
disturbs her because the word “abortion” is not in the proposed constitutional
amendment.
Why
should it be, one would have to ask? After all, if the legal definition of
“person” actually includes all living human beings from fertilization to
natural death, abortion would simply be against the law! The word does not have
to be in the constitution; in fact, it should not be. After all, none other
than Justice Harry Blackmun said in the Roe
v. Wade decision, “[If the] suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is
established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’
right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”
Personhood
has always been the goal of many in the pro-life movement. So, when someone
from NARAL is honest enough to tell the media that, indeed, if the Colorado
proposal is adopted, practices like in vitro fertilization and chemicals like
the birth control pill will be illegal, she is making our case for us. After
all, any method that kills a preborn person would have to be ruled a crime.
Otherwise, the amendment would be meaningless.
I
love the enthusiasm of the leaders of Colorado for Equal Rights. One of them,
the lovely Kristi Burton, who is but 20 years old, told the media that her
group’s effort is all about the principle, not about abortion. Clearly, she
pointed out, every person should have equal rights under the law and all they
are trying to do is make that guarantee all-inclusive ? preborn children and, yes, even embryonic
children who some like to describe as “eggs.”
Compare
NARAL’s words with those of the most deceptive rhetorical gymnasts ? the
pro-lifers who do not want to support proposals like the Colorado ballot
measure or similar measures at state or federal levels. Their words are a bit
more difficult to see through, but equally ? if not more ? deadly for preborn
children.
James
Bopp, a veteran pro-life attorney and political strategist, has opined that
pro-lifers who pursue personhood are similar to Don Quixote tilting at
windmills. In one legal memo, Bopp suggested that “astute pro-life leaders have countered this by rallying
pro-lifers around passing what restrictions were permissible.” He further
opined that “the pro-life movement must at present avoid fighting on the more
difficult terrain of its own position, namely arguing that abortion should not
be available in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and harm to the mother.
While restricting abortion in these situations is morally defensible, public
opinion polls show that popular support for the pro-life side drops off
dramatically when these ‘hard’ cases are the topic.”
Obviously,
the Bopp strategy, which is the National Right to Life and Focus on the Family
strategy too, is based on a pragmatic political agenda. Bopp contends that
hard-case abortions represent numbers so small that even ardent pro-lifers
could accept those abortions as a political reality. Yet this argument denies
personhood and contradicts principle.
But
remember, like every other proposal before it, the Colorado initiative does not
mention “abortion.” Rather, it acknowledges the principle that each and every
innocent human person deserves equal protection. The Colorado initiative does
not require arguing about which abortions will be condoned, accepted or
otherwise never opposed. It simply tells the truth that every person, from his
beginning, deserves equal protection.
If I
sound like a broken record, good! Perhaps the message is finally getting
through. For 29 years now, American Life League has been educating the public
and calling for legally established personhood. Therefore, we are not about to
cave in to the preferred rhetoric of the political side of the pro-life
movement. Such skewed political theory has not worked in 34 years and it will
never work. Why? Because when a movement is fighting for equal protection for
an entire class of persons, it cannot win by consciously choosing not to
protect every single one of them. Such a position is not only illogical; it is
a recipe for defeat.
Colorado
for Equal Rights deserves the unqualified support of every single organization
or person that is self-described as pro-life. Nothing less will win the day for
truth, principle and the babies.
Release issued: 27 Nov 07
|
