On the ballot November 4 in Colorado is an amendment that would define “person” as “any human being from the moment of fertilization.”

If passed, every fertilized egg and fetus would have full protection and all the rights of older individuals, under the law, even due process. Sponsors of the bill say it will clarify what personhood actually is, in light of modern-day scientific findings.

Opponents say the amendment would have far-reaching consequences and might allow abortion and contraception to be interpreted as murder. Real contraception — that which precludes a woman from conceiving a child — could never be interpreted as murder. The modern-day usage of the word contraceptive, however, encompasses most of the products on the market today including the low-dose oral contraceptives, the patch, implantables and injectibles, that, as manufacturers admit, can have abortifacient actions as potential secondary means to prevent pregancies. "Abortifacient" is the medical term for any abortion-causing preparation. So, Amendment 48 could have some effect on the use of abortifacients — which according to some estimates account for as many as 8 to 11 million medical and chemical abortions per year in this country.

Supposedly pro-life Governor Bill Ritter opposes the amendment, as does the Colorado Bar Association, and of course, pro-abortion groups. It took 130,000 signatures to get it on the ballot, so perhaps the media poll showing that two-thirds of Coloradans oppose the amendment might be a bit off.

There are other states where pro-abortion advocates are complaining that an anti-contraception movement is taking hold because the debate has now entered the political sphere via various campaigns and amendment proposals, and clearly they don't welcome the attention. Mississippi, Georgia, Michigan, Oregon, and Montana have attempted to get similar measures passed, and in New Jersey, Ohio, New Hampshire, Washington, and Virginia awareness of the abortifacient nature of “contraceptives” is under discussion in congressional and state legislative races.

Christina Page from BirthControlWatch.org said, “The discussion of social issues has expanded to include birth control, sex education, stem cell and more; all the issues that get stalled in Congress once the “abortion” label is applied.” The plan to combat this is to “edit from Congress” the more extreme anti-abortion, anti-contraception legislators and go after the new “pill kills” groups. And also they want to be sure that their terminology sticks because they know that once the label “abortion” or “abortifacient” is attached to all the contraceptives on the market, they face an uphill battle.

These groups to will likely insist that it’s contraception that is being attacked when worries or concerns about the abortifacient properties of contraceptive chemicals are discussed. Likely, pro-contraception and pro-abortion groups will also argue that a woman’s right to have a prescription filled at the pharmacy is being prevented by efforts such as that which led to the Colorado amendment. Pro-lifers will probably be attacked as “anti-contraception” extremists. Irrespective of these likely complaints, the truth is more important than political agendas. It's about time that the abortifacient properties of modern contraceptives are brought into the light of public scrutiny so that the women taking them can, in fact, understand fully the ramifications of that action and the consequences to the unborn.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

john connor said:

	... We must allow the unborn to enter the world so when they become 18, they can go off and die in profit driven wars.
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 24, 2008 | url
Votes: +0