Earlier this month at a Denver event attended by Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, Dr. Eliza Buyers said that a ballot initiative asking voters to decide when life begins could ban not only abortion but also some types of birth control and fertility treatments. Ritter opposes the measure, and has urged citizens to vote against it. (Kristen Wyatt/AP)
Abortion rises again as election issue
South Dakota, Colorado, and California weigh measures.
By Amanda Paulson | Staff writer/ October 16, 2008 edition
Reporter Amanda Paulson discusses abortion ballot initiatives in two western states this fall.
Reporter Amanda Paulson
Abortion is on the ballot in several states this fall, in measures that could have profound implications for the national debate on the issue.
In South Dakota, voters will weigh in – for the second time in two years – on a ballot measure that would ban nearly all abortions in the state.
Advocates are optimistic that this time, with added exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother, voters will approve it.
In Colorado, a proposed amendment that could have sweeping implications for abortion, fertility clinics, and stem-cell research would officially define any fertilized egg as a “person” under the state constitution.
And in California, voters are seeing the third effort in four years to enact a law requiring parental notification before a minor can have an abortion.
While it’s not unusual for abortion-related issues to be on state ballots, the South Dakota and Colorado measures, in particular, are far-reaching and could ultimately form the basis of a challenge to Roe v. Wade, if either passes.
Those two measures have also been unusually divisive among the antiabortion community, and they offer a window into the direction that the abortion conversation is headed in the United States.
“Both the South Dakota and Colorado initiatives are really striking at the heart of Roe,” says Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “Both of them, if passed and there were litigation, would put them into the pipeline to eventually get to the Supreme Court.”
Last month, many pundits were predicting a reignition of the culture wars, as Sarah Palin’s nomination got Americans talking about abortion. But since then, the economic crisis has wiped cultural issues from the pages of newspapers and, perhaps, from many voters’ minds.
“The extraordinary economic events of recent weeks sort of drove them off center stage again,” says Gary Bauer, president of American Values, an antiabortion advocacy group in Washington. In the first two presidential debates, he notes, no questions focused on “values” questions. Still, Mr. Bauer says, “These issues will continue to be powerful, and contrary to the conventional wisdom, I think that long term, they will continue to hurt politically liberal candidates and help conservative candidates.”
In South Dakota, people are voting, essentially, on whether abortion should be legal. In a conservative state that is staunchly antiabortion, it would seem to be a no-brainer. But when voters faced a similar referendum two years ago, they voted it down 56 percent to 44 percent.
Many voters at the time said that they felt the law as written was too unforgiving: Abortion would be forbidden in cases of rape, incest, or the mother’s health. Polling data after the vote caused the law’s advocates to bring it back, this time with exceptions for those cases.
The exceptions made the major antiabortion group in the state withdraw its support, but backers hope that the referendum will be more palatable to voters teetering in the middle. “We’ve talked to a lot of people who said, ‘I voted no,’ and they said, ‘You have rape and incest exceptions. This time I can vote for it,” says Leslie Unruh, campaign manager for VoteYesForLife.com.
Whereas last time opponents of the measure focused almost exclusively on the bill’s lack of exceptions, this time they’ve appealed to the strong libertarian streak in many residents.
South Dakota “is very much a pro-life state,” says Chris Cassidy for the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, which opposes the measure.
“It’s a question of what that means to each individual person. Not everyone who’s pro-life is willing to force their views onto others, and not everyone is willing to put them into government hands.”
Ms. Unruh says her only goal is to change law in South Dakota, but most experts are looking to the inevitable legal challenges. One legal memo from Harold Cassidy (no relation), an antiabortion lawyer in New Jersey, says, “Whatever the make-up of the Supreme Court in 2011, it may well be the best Court we will have for the next ten to fifteen years [to overturn Roe], and even beyond.”
Still, antiabortion groups have been far from uniform in their support of either South Dakota’s or Colorado’s measure, often questioning the timing and legal wisdom of bringing such a direct challenge. Colorado’s measure, in particular, has earned opposition from several Catholic bishops, National Right to Life, and the state’s Democratic, antiabortion governor.
Critics of the proposed amendment have charged that the measure – which would redefine a “person” as any fertilized egg – could have far-reaching and still unknown consequences.
“At a minimum, it would ban all abortions,” including in situations of rape or incest or to save the mother’s life, says Eve Gartner, deputy director of public policy litigation at Planned Parenthood Federation of America. It could also have implications, she says, for the healthcare of pregnant women, in vitro fertilization, contraception, and even tax laws.
“I’m speechless even thinking about the possible permutations this could take if it were passed,” she says. “This would be entering into uncharted territory.”
Kristi Burton, the amendment’s sponsor, counters that the law would only change the definition in three sections of the constitution and that such fears are unwarranted. “This just lays a common-sense foundation” for what constitutes a person, she says.
Comments
2. Robert F. Hanna | 10.17.08
Number One: Abortion should NOT be a political subject. If you back to when this was brought before the Supreme Court, there were many articles written by emergency room nurses regarding the dire medical state of many women who were butchered by back alley abortionists. Some so badly damaged that they could never have children.
But since 1972 both sides have never tried to find a middle ground that would protect both sides, these should be along the following lines;
1. Teach an effective, complete sex education course, no exceptions, no dropouts.
2. Provide good brith control beyond just abstinence, including the morning after pill.
3. Prove the necessary services to provide care for those who wish to carry their pregnancy to
birth and provide the training and Phycological servies to equip the mother care for the child.
4. If you are not going to do a program like this this shut up about abortion!
3. Ed Liberatore | 10.17.08
Stop telling me and others what God thinks. I have a daughter and I hope and pray that she doesn’t make the mistake of getting pregnant but I will do what ever it takes for her to move on from that mistake including getting an abortion. I will have to answer to God not all of you, so don’t tell me what is right based on what you think God wants.
4. Etta May Ladson | 10.18.08
What we need are more people committed to a proCreation view of birth. There is actually no difference between a proLife and proChoice position.
Both speak of birth as abortion. Both take the view that life is determined by a woman, or the medical profession, or the state legislature or the Supreme Court. We proCreationers believe that all birth is determined by God alone, that a person is one into whom the breath of life outside the womb is given. We proCreationers do not believe that the woman, the medical folks, the legislatures or the Supreme Court could have prevented the birth of Jesus and we agree with Jesus that it would have been better if Judas had been aborted - or had never been birthed. Yes, we hold God accountable for everyone alive in our time and for everyone whose birth is destined to be cancelled.
5. Kate Green | 10.18.08
Ed Liberatore,
If you want to know what God thinks about abortion, read Psalm 139. Nobody has the right to take away life, even when its just conceived. God gives life and he has a wonderful plan for every soul, sometimes our free will messes with it. I don’t claim to understand God. No one does. Our minds are not capable. One thing I am capable of is to tell good from evil.
God bless you all.
I hope on November 4th we all make the right choice.
God is King of all kings. Its in his hands.
6. Alicia | 10.18.08
I have a couple questions.
When a pregnant woman is murdered, and the fetus dies also, why is that considered as a double homicide?
How is abortion any different?
Abortion is pre-meditated murder.
7. Keiran Welmont | 10.18.08
If you’re interested in what the Bible says about when human life starts, read Psalm 139.
8. Maria | 10.18.08
Care of an unborn begins with the care of a pregnant woman. First of all, she needs a comprehensive free health care. Next is to provide a comprehensive free health care to all children. Kids also need a clean water, air, and safe toys. The GOP is adamantly against all these provisions.
9. Danno D | 10.18.08
You pro-lifers can’t know any of that which you profess to “know”. And if there’s no evidence supporting your belief, then it doesn’t belong on ballot initiatives, it doesn’t belong in the public square, and it’s a waste of time. It’s mindless superstition, which, of course, you’re free to espouse.
10. John Adams | 10.18.08
To Etta May Ladson:
I think that, due to your reasoning, you should be proAbortion… after all, if “God” will take care of the issue, why must the Government legislate it at all? “God” will find the way to punish the bad and reward the good. Using the law to ban someone aborting leaves no decission to be made, so she is neither good not bad.
To most of you: Really, really, really. Taking a line from the Bible and holding it as “The Truth” just because it is in the Bible? It sounds scary. There is people out there that does not believe in your god, and even people who does not believe in any god… Maybe saying “this is truth because it is in the Bible” may sound like a proof of something to you, but it really means nothing. Please, if you want to expose an opinion, expose it, but do not expect other people to blindly accept your beliefs… This is scary.
11. spencer | 10.19.08
The government is responsible for all citizens including the unborn. The medical proof of life at conception is there but ignored. What’s scarey is people not caring enough about life.
12. Diana Hsieh | 10.20.08
Is a fertilized egg a person with a right to life, as Colorado’s Amendment 48 claims? NO!
An embryo or fetus is wholly dependent on the woman for its basic life-functions. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as an extension of her body, contained within and dependent on her for its survival. It is only a potential person, not an actual person.
In contrast, a newborn baby exists as a distinct organism, separate from his mother. Although still very needy, he lives his own life. He is a person with rights.
So terminating a pregnancy does not violate the rights of any person. It is a woman’s right to do whatever she wants with her body, even when pregnant.
For more information, visit: http://www.ColoradoVoteNo48.com
Diana Hsieh
Founder, Coalition for Secular Government
http://www.seculargovernment.us
13. kt | 10.20.08
How is this a political agenda, and not simply a health issue? How can anyone w/out a uterus have a right to vote for or against abortion?
Liberals are the only Pro-Lifers out there. Conservatives are Pro-birth, not Pro-life. They want all of those unfortunate little suckers born, but then they do not want to hear from them again until they are uneducated enough to vote Republican.
The ending of a potential life is a tragedy and a terrible burden for a woman to bear. But it is her life and her body, and nobody should encourage an advanced society to revert back to desperate women being forced to be mutilated by butchers. Just because I could never have an abortion myself, I would never ever deny that right to another woman. Those other lives are none of my business, and none of yours.
Republicans would be so much more respectable in this issue if they supported free medical care for mothers and their children, a top-quality education for these children, and assistance with the bare essentials in life. No child should ever be cold or hungry or pushed aside in the wealthiest country in the world. Can Christians truly claim that Jesus would not have supported the best care for the least among us? No, we get Republicans ranting about welfare mothers and socialism. As if they even understand what socialism is.
The common ground should include comprehensive education for every child and free and easy access to birth control and health screens. Let us do everything we can in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Keep abortion legal, safe, and rare.
Go Obama/Biden! Save us from our ignorance.
14. kraig | 10.21.08
Sorry, I must feel different than you who insists on choosing on not considering the life of the life that has been created by two people who had a choice not to have a relationship or to have a relationship for your own pleasure. Why should the life that was created have to be terminated when someone else is ready to love the life you don’t want? I’m sorry but you had the first choice to enjoy your pleasure so let the life created be loved by someone if you don’t want the life yourself.
15. someone | 10.28.08
If people are for abortion, its like they are for murder. (excuse me)
But if you are against abortion, then do your best to show that and tell people to keep clean!
16. Timmy | 10.29.08
It doesn’t have to be a religious issue, it is a public issue that does belong on a ballot. Its about the constitution. The constitution specifically grants a right to life, but the right to privacy which abortion rights are based on is only inferred. Even with a right to privacy accepted, when 2 constitutional rights are in conflict - the right to life must supersede the right to privacy. Otherwise, you could beat your children or your spouse in the privacy of your home. Even the Supreme Court has defined rights based on fetus “viability.” Viability is a moving target based on technology and is no definition of life. If the court agrees human life begins before birth, then a definite even must cause that life to begin, either heartbeat, brainwaves… these make sense; but only conception is the clear point that life begins and is worthy of constitutional protection.
17. Cynthia Rhoades | 11.03.08
Ralph Nader are you for PRO LIFE AND FOR JESUS MISSION IN OUR LIFE TIME?
18. Jeff Ortiz | 11.05.08
Kt,
In regards to your notion that we are an advanced society, how does an advanced society rationalize the murder of over $48 million unborn children since 1973 and Roe vs. Wade.
Your lack of sympathy and compassion are shocking when you refer to a defenseless child in what is supposed to be the safest place in the world which is its mother’s womb as an “unfortunate little sucker”. I can tell that you have thought long and hard and, dare I say, prayed about this issue from your great choice of words…
Get your facts straight. We do hand out free birth control in schools and in “reproductive clinics” as they are called. Women enter those clinics and come out with contraceptives and other forms of birth control all the time.
My father-in-law is a OBGYN at a practice in Maryland which provides prenatal care and screening and post-birth care to the under and un-insured. That means its FREE.
Also, women have more options now than ever before to go to pregnancy assistance centers run by pro-lifers and pro-choice advocates for help throughout a pregnancy and after the child is born. People donate food, clothing, and other items every day of the year at these centers. Why is it then that the number of abortions is steady at approximately 1 million per year for the last 35 years? Here is a link that shows the number of abortions per year since 1973 if anyone is interested or convicted by this issue: http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html. It is because unchecked and sanctioned legal abortion provides our people (not just women) with too easy an out. Indeed, the decision to abort a child must be incredibly hard for a woman to bear, but what is the alternative. It seems to me from the numbers that the decision is still easier than the alternative, which would be to rise to the occasion and say “Yes I can”, commit her life to self-sacrifice and raise a child which might be the greatest blessing to have ever happened in her life.
Finally, be careful when you presuppose what Jesus would and would not support. He does call us to care for the least among us, INCLUDING UNBORN CHILDREN. I don’t suppose he meant that our tax dollars should be given as grants and subsidies to Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in this country, a business that brings in over $900 million a year from the death of children. I like to think he meant that we should individually offer our own help out of charity and selflessness to help the less fortunate and frightened of our society, and not let our government do it for us behind closed doors.
How do you think Jesus feels about our collective murder of 48,589,993 children, to be exact, since 1973? How many of us have even taken to time to inform ourselves about the horror of abortion before we post or make some partisan comment like “kt” did above which only serves to divide us further?
There is hope for this country. That hope is the way, the truth, and the life. He is Jesus Christ. May we and the laws of this country set out to be imitators of his selfless sacrifice for us.
Jeff Ortiz
Maryland
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Harold Reimann | 10.17.08
When the country goes down, God should spare South Dakota! What we have in this country is not Democratic Socialism, it’s Democratic Satanism! Add to abortion - sodomy, woman’s lib and multiculturalism!