Colorado voters in 2008 trounced an amendment that would have defined a fertilized human egg as a person, but supporters of the "personhood" ballot issue are angling for a rematch in 2010.
This time, though, they're avoiding the word "fertilization" in the amendment's language, saying that the term confused voters, who may have visualized chicken eggs.
"When we use 'fertilized egg,' it's a pejorative," said Keith Mason, director of Personhood USA, an Arvada-based organization supporting the measure and similar proposals across the country.
Supporters today gathered outside the state Capitol to announce that they had filed language for the proposed Colorado Personhood Constitutional Amendment with the Legislative Council, the first step in getting an initiative petition approved for circulation to place it on the November 2010 ballot.
The amendment would say that "the term 'person' shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."
So what is "the beginning of the biological development of that human being"? That would be up to courts to decide, said Gualberto Garcia Jones of PersonhoodColorado.
Voters in 2008 defeated Amendment 48, with 72.8 percent against to 27.2 percent in favor. The amendment proposed changing the constitution to say that "the terms 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization."
Even so, supporters of the new personhood amendment say they think they can win this time.
"The basic reason we are doing this again is we are right," Mason said. FFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Leslie Hanks, vice president of Colorado Right to Life, compared support for the proposal to the civil-rights movement. It's an ongoing struggle, she said.
"They didn't give up after one strategic loss," Hanks said.
Monica McCafferty, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, said there was little difference between the latest personhood proposal and Amendment 48.
"The language certainly remains vague and is up to interpretation by the courts," she said, "but it does appear to have the same aim as Amendment 48.
"The fact remains, Colorado has voted on this issue, and a 73 percent majority said they don't want this."
Toni Panetta, political director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, said the amendment would create a "legal nightmare" in the state's constitution if passed.
"Like Amendment 48, which Colorado voters rejected by a 3-to-1 margin, this amendment looks like it would have far-reaching consequences on important life decisions that should be made by individuals, their doctors, and their family," Panetta said.
EPIC FAIL. These ~Personhood~ people are WINGNUTS to the nth degree. Leave our state alone! No matter how these assbags re-word their stupid amendment, we all know it means the same thing. Also, I suggest reading some of the comments over at the source. Some are quite lulzy, but in a good way!