Possibly the worst part of the entire ordeal is the horribly vague wording on the amendment. Under its statute, even birth control will not be legal, as ejecting/destroying any fertilized eggs will be counted as murder. So the removal of abortion rights and the ability to use birth control will both be prohibited by this amendment. It’s almost to the point where they’re just not allowing women to have sex at all.
Even if abortion is wrong in some circumstances — and it is -- some women get raped, are victims of incest, or just fall victim to an unfortunate incident like a broken condom. If any of these unfortunate occurrences were to happen, Amendment 48 will strip all rights of choice away from the woman, even if she is not healthy enough to have a child. You read that correctly. Even if having the baby would kill the mother, the baby still cannot be removed. How on this earth anyone can support an amendment meant for life that may and will kill others, I don’t know.
If you live in Colorado, I urge you to let common sense overtake you and vote no on Amendment 48. People elsewhere, beware that this horror may come to your state next. "We are giving Colorado voters an opportunity to vote their conscience and protect the most innocent and helpless ones among us,” the organization added.
Apparently they never got the memo that they were creating new ones.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dan Miller
What a grand thing to ponder on this, the anniversary of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution or something or other like that.
Dan
2 - Jet in Columbus
Just another example of the religious right trying to force it's "morals" on America...
3 - Franco
There in not one word in the Colorado Amendment 48 that states anything about criminalizing abortion due to rape, incest, or life threading complications to the mother. In fact, no ware in the title or text of the amendment can you find the word "abortion".
Fact: Kristi Burton, a 20-year-old law student, heads Colorado for Equal Rights. She, her group, and their web site are not discussing the changes that would result if the referendum were passed. Burton notes that the constitutional amendment doesn’t outlaw abortion, it doesn't regulate birth control. It's just a constitutional principle. We're laying a foundation that every life deserves protection. It's very clearly a single subject. If it's a human being, it's a person, and they deserve equal rights under our law.
4 - Tazzy
Uhm, Franco, did you eat paint chips as a child?
5 - Chris "UZ" White
...so by your logic the 14th amendment doesn't actually outlaw slavery because the word "slavery" never actually appears in it?
Were you born without that little part of your brain that provides INSIGHT, Franco?
6 - Darrell B
You stated...
"Even if having the baby would kill the mother, the baby still cannot be removed. How on this earth anyone can support an amendment meant for life that may and will kill others, I don’t know."
That is a untrue. Removal of the baby to save the mother has never been the problem. Christy Burton and supporters of the amendment are not against the removal of the baby in life threatening situations. Saving the mother and the baby should always be the goal. Saving the mother never requires that the baby is dismembered or burned with saline. Sometimes when you remove the baby, it is impossible to save the baby... but that should always be the goal. As technology advances, the more we can save.
7 - Darrell B
You said...
"Even if abortion is wrong in some circumstances " and it is -- some women get raped, are victims of incest, or just fall victim to an unfortunate incident like a broken condom."
Your position is illogical. The only way abortion can ever be wrong is because it's killing a baby. If it's not a baby, it can never be wrong. You know in your heart that it is a baby... that's why you say it's wrong in some circumstances.
We shouldn't punish children for the crimes of their parents. Punish the rapist and person committing incest... not the innocent crime who has done no wrong.
As for the "victim" of a broken condom. That would be the innocent baby who you say could be killed... not the parents, who were willfully participating in an act with natural results.
8 - Clavos, aka Mr. Rogers
"Punish the rapist and person committing incest... not the innocent crime who has done no wrong."
Exactly.
So why would you punish the mother (who is innocent) by forcing her to have a baby conceived under those circumstances?
9 - Darrell B
Steve Curtis said...
"Abortion for incest emboldens a criminal to rape his young relative, helps him escape being caught, tempts him to repeat his crime and is not compassionate because it kills a baby and increases the woman's suffering."
You can't understand his statement? I'll explain.
If the rapist of young girl is a relative, they can take the girl to a planned parenthood abortion clinic and have the evidence of the crime destroyed... and he gets away with rape. Is it inconceivable to you that a rapist who gets away with it will try again?
The baby is killed and the girl is left vulnerable to suffer rape again and again.
Abortion clinics are in the business of making money. They turn a blind eye to rape to make money. If the girl is 12 and guy is 21, they do not report the man for rape. They want to make the money.
10 - Andy Marsh
Clavos - if she has an abortion, she woudln't be a mother, would she??? Or is that part of the argument, just like, when does an embryo become a person, when does a woman become a mother?
11 - Darrell B
"So why would you punish the mother (who is innocent) by forcing her to have a baby conceived under those circumstances?"
The whole episode of rape is traumatic to the mother... but I notice that you did call her a mother. She isn't a mother unless she has a baby.
If you balance on the scales...
A trauma to one innocent person vs. the killing of another innocent person, you would rather kill one innocent to avoid pain and suffering to another.
Pain vs. Life!
Life needs to trump pain.
The pain of having a baby is temporary. The ending of a life is permanent.
Hundreds of thousands of couples unsuccessfully wait in line each year to adopt and love a baby.
The victim of rape can have the satisfaction of knowing she has loved her baby enough to allow the baby to be raised by parents who want to love the baby.
12 - Darrell B
Chris,
At the top of your comments section your policy states "Personal attacks are not allowed."... yet you not only allowed a personal attack against Franco to stand, you piled on with your own personal attack against Franco.
13 - Dr Dreadful
Darrell @ #9:
You apparently missed the author's perfectly valid point later in that same paragraph: "He's also making an amazing assumption that the father won’t rape again after the child is born."
If Curtis gets his way in this scenario, not only is the girl still vulnerable - now her baby is as well.
14 - Dr Dreadful
And @ #12:
Chris White is a contributor to this website, not an editor. He has no power to edit or remove comments.
As the assistant comments editor for Blogcritics, I can tell you that we try to keep the comments space as open a forum as possible. We'll edit or delete particularly egregious violations and even sometimes block persistent offenders, but it's important to allow you to 'speak your mind', so we operate with as light a hand as possible.
Comments like those you object to, while not exactly classy, were made in response to the opinion expressed by Franco, which apparently seemed less than sensible to Tazzy and Chris. Believe me, there have been far worse things said on this site!
But we do watch such comments and will take action if things get out of hand.
15 - Darrell B
"You apparently missed the author's perfectly valid point later in that same paragraph: "He's also making an amazing assumption that the father won't rape again after the child is born."
If Curtis gets his way in this scenario, not only is the girl still vulnerable - now her baby is as well."
You apparently missed Curtis' and my point that the living baby is evidence of the rape that can be used against the rapist to convict him. An abortion would simply enable the rapist to get away with his crime then rape again because the evidence has been destroyed.
As for her baby now being vulnerable...the baby should be protected by convicting the rapist and allowing a loving family to adopt.
You imply that you are concerned about the vulnerability of the baby, but your answer is to kill the baby?
If you have a child and some criminal was attacking your child, would you kill your child to save him from the attack?
16 - Jet in Columbus
Well said Doc
17 - Clavos
"but I notice that you did call her a mother. She isn't a mother unless she has a baby."
Call it what you want, although I (and all of the medical and scientific world) call it a fetus until born, but I say you abort the "baby" if it's the product of rape, IF the mother wants it that way.
And as far as the incestuous rapist raping again I say, punish him as well; let him spend the rest of his life in jail being raped; which is punishment to fit the crime.
"You apparently missed Curtis' and my point that the living baby is evidence of the rape that can be used against the rapist to convict him. An abortion would simply enable the rapist to get away with his crime then rape again because the evidence has been destroyed."
Totally specious argument. Any necessary evidence can and is collected long before the fetus is viable, so aborting it (again, IF the woman wants it) is not going to prevent prosecution of the monster who raped her.
18 - Dr Dreadful
You apparently missed Curtis' and my point that the living baby is evidence of the rape that can be used against the rapist to convict him.
You're making a number of assumptions here. You and Curtis assume that the rape would be reported, that the victim would tell her doctor and/or the police who the father was, and that consent for paternity testing would be given.
If you know anything at all about the way incest and abuse (not to mention the criminal justice system) works, you'll realize that you're being awfully unrealistic here.
Amendment 48 does nothing to protect the victims or their babies.
19 - Chris "UZ" White
Wow, I must've missed something, 8 new comments?
Darrel: You're saying that it would be totally impossible to prove the rape unless the baby is born? The aborted fetus or the fact that there is testimony in the first place can't prove that? He'll go to jail baby or not, and you're going to force the mother to raise a child either way?
20 - Darrell B
"You're making a number of assumptions here. You and Curtis assume that the rape would be reported, that the victim would tell her doctor and/or the police who the father was, and that consent for paternity testing would be given."
We were talking about abortions in the case of rape and incest. If no report of rape or incest is made, there can be no basis for a rape or incest abortion.
"Amendment 48 does nothing to protect the victims or their babies."
It protects babies from being killed... but apparently you don't consider saving their lives protection.
21 - Darrell B
"Totally specious argument. Any necessary evidence can and is collected long before the fetus is viable, so aborting it (again, IF the woman wants it) is not going to prevent prosecution of the monster who raped her."
You are assuming swift reporting. Especially in the case of the rape of an under age girl, the DNA of the baby along can convict the rapist if the rapist is over age. A living baby can be used to prove a rape several years after the fact because the ages of girl and the man at the time of conception along with DNA proves rape.
If the baby is quickly aborted in a very short time, there is no physical evidence left to convict a rapist.
22 - Darrell B
"Darrel: You're saying that it would be totally impossible to prove the rape unless the baby is born? The aborted fetus or the fact that there is testimony in the first place can't prove that? He'll go to jail baby or not, and you're going to force the mother to raise a child either way?"
Two straw man arguments. I never said it was impossible to prove rape unless the baby is born, but if the baby lives he is physical evidence that can be used way down the road, whereas the aborted fetus is quickly disposed of.
The more evidence the more likely a conviction occurs.
You know that I never advocated forcing the girl to raise the baby. I clearly said that adoption by parents who want a child is a good outcome.
23 - Clavos
"You are assuming swift reporting. Especially in the case of the rape of an under age girl, the DNA of the baby along can convict the rapist if the rapist is over age. A living baby can be used to prove a rape several years after the fact because the ages of girl and the man at the time of conception along with DNA proves rape."
DNA can be preserved for decades, so swift reporting is not a necessity, as long as the DNA is taken prior to (or during) the abortion.
Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term is much more cruel than aborting it.
24 - Dr Dreadful
Darrell, in your original scenario, if I read you correctly, the father/rapist forces the girl to go to Planned Parenthood [hiss!] for an abortion to destroy evidence of his crime. No crime is reported.
Say the amendment passes, Planned Parenthood and other abortion facilities are forced to close their doors and the baby is born. The father continues to rape his daughter and, given the cycle of abuse that usually occurs, in time begins to rape his grandchild as well. Still no crime is reported.
I'm sorry that you feel I don't consider the life of the baby important*. But I'm starting to get the impression that you value it more as a piece of physical evidence than as a human being.
* I'm personally not happy with abortion. I see it as a necessary evil in some circumstances.
25 - Yorzhik
What? DNA is kept with each abortion? It must be true because society, the father, the doctor, and the mother all want a record of killing the baby. Right?