The amendment, known as "Definition of a Person" would provide protection to all human beings as persons from the "moment of fertilization." While it is clear that this language will not protect innocent human beings "created" by asexual methods such as cloning, the amendment is a huge step toward the victory we all seek – a victory that will end abortion in our nation once and for all if the Supreme Court ever decides to be honest and forthright in their decision-making process. But I digress.
The opponents, namely Protect Families, Protect Choice, argue that the language is "vague and deceptive" and they go on to tell the public, most accurately I might add, that the language would encroach on everything from abortion to contraception and in vitro fertilization. They are in an absolute frenzy because for the first time in the history of the pro-life movement the citizens of a state are going to be able to hear the truth and that is enough to frighten any member of the pro-death cadre that has used deceptive tactics since day one. Their brain-washing techniques are about to get shaken up. It is no wonder that they are screaming bloody murder. Excuse me, bloody murder is part of their business, now isn’t it?
Sorry for the poor choice in words.
When American Right to Life congratulated Colorado for Equal Rights on their stunning victory, qualifying for the ballot with at least 30,000 more signatures than they needed, Brian Rohrbough, president of American RTL, said,
For the first time in forty years of 'legalized' child killing, pro-lifers have moved an entire state to consider the God-given right to life of the unborn. We thank sponsor Kristi Burton of Colorado for Equal Rights, the 500 participating churches, and Colorado RTL for getting personhood on the November ballot.
But the pro-death Birth Control Watch organization took a different tactic, stating "It's Official: This November Colorado will Consider Whether Fertilized Eggs Are Human Beings." Already they are committed to dehumanizing the preborn child, calling him by an improper name in order to convince people that human embryos are no different than chicken eggs and doing all they can to obfuscate fact. This is nothing new, of course.
But I think that in this age of 4-D ultrasound, immense support from Colorado Christian churches and dedication the likes of which we at American Life League have never seen from a local grass roots effort, the pro-aborts are in for a huge surprise. They can persist, if they wish, in their deception but the truth will no longer be hidden from public view.
Even bloggers are beginning to do their homework, digging down and attempting to discern the truth even though many medical organizations have been quick to deny that a human being exists at fertilization/conception/point of creation. For example, in a popular Christian blog, written by Presbyterian pastors David and Tim Bayly, we find this little-known quote from a 1998 medical journal:
The purposes of this study are to assess the use of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) definitions of conception (a synonym for implantation) and the beginning of pregnancy (at implantation) in the clinical practice of its members and to explore the implications of differing definitions of conception and pregnancy onset for the process of informed consent. A survey was mailed to 112 members of the Louisville Ob/Gyn Society asking what definition of conception they used in their clinical practice and when they judged pregnancy began. …A total of 73% (70 of 96) (95% CI 69-77%) of the members indicated that conception was a synonym for fertilization, and 24% (23 of 96) (95% CI 21-28%) indicated that conception was a synonym for implantation (P < .001). Of the members, 50% (48 of 96) indicated that pregnancy began at fertilization, and 48% (46 of 96) indicated that pregnancy began with implantation (NS). Regression analysis failed to demonstrate a significant relationship to type of practice, years in practice, or the ACOG membership for these responses. Neither ACOG definition has been consistently adopted by its members whose definitions are more consistent with lay and embryologist definitions. Potentially, the process of informed consent is jeopardized by these ambiguities. The ACOG is urged to reconsider its definitions. J. Matern. – Fetal Med. 7:264-268, 1998. © 1998 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Note the call for ACOG to start defining terms dealing with human beings and pregnancy with accuracy rather than political correctness.
It is our fervent hope and prayer that the effort in Colorado succeeds and there are signs everywhere that it just might do precisely that! Onward with PERSONHOOD!
