What a Successful State Personhood Amendment Looks Like

The possibility that you might be supporting a faulty Personhood Amendment (aka Human Life Amendment) that allows ‘some’ unborn children to be murdered should deserve enough of your time for you to discover the truth.  Below are some standards we believe are fundamental.

Early State Personhood Amendments, like Michigan (2006) and Colorado (2008), did not protect all unborn children.  In 2009, the Personhood Movement is still young and still learning and is slowly changing to do what is right.  Regardless of the strategy, tact, or style of a Personhood Amendment  there are common root issues that will determine IF the Amendment CAN BE Successful.  If you are thinking about backing, supporting, or even writing a proposedPersonhood Amendment, without doing basic research, you could be rushing into, and encouraging others into, promoting an amendment that allows the murder of ‘some’ unborn children.

Rule #1:  Do Not Murder

A Successful Amendment defines and protects the personhood of all unborn children, from both natural and artificial(lab) reproduction, and at all stages of biological development, otherwise it will allow the killing of ‘some’ unborn children.  This is murder and violates God’s Law.  The wording in a successful amendment will be very clear and leave no doubt in its protection of all unborn children.

You need to be aware of a significant trend that occurred in early Personhood Amendments through 2008 that only focused on the definition of personhood from fertilization or conception.  This did not protect all unborn children because it did not address babies created by asexual, laboratory, and non-natural methods.  This can be seen in early Personhood Amendments like that of Michigan in 2006 and Colorado in 2008.

There’s a technical reason for not using the term “conception”.  The medical term has changed in recent decades to only mean at the time of implantation, which occurs about 8 days after the beginning of life (fertilization).

The use of only the term “conception” or “fertilization” in an amendment would applies only to ‘natural’ man-woman creation methods and does not address non-natural reproductive methods at all.  Such non-natural reproduction includes the creation of embryos (babies) for experimentation, harvesting parts, stem cell research, cloning, and in vitro fertilization.  The use of only the term “conception” in an amendment does not cover the first 8 days of life and allows for RU-486, “the morning after pill” and other pharmaceutical abortions within the first week.

This is a big problem that the Personhood Movement has now only starting to address and can be seen in most newer generation amendments introduced in 2009.  So please be aware of this issue in your reviews.

GOOD TERMS to Watch For: “the term ‘person’ shall apply to all human beings” ― “regardless of method of reproduction, health, function, or condition of dependency”  ―  “All stages of biological development”  ―  from or including “fertilization” (the medical term ‘conception’ does not include the beginning of life).  If you find similar wording then your amendment is most likely covering all unborn children.

ROE FACT:  If an Amendment does not cover all unborn children then it has no hope of overturning Roe and ending abortion.  Why?  See Exceptions.

Rule #2:  Be Clear & Strong

A Successful Amendment contains clear and strong language that does not leave any doubt as to what it is trying to accomplish.  This does not relate to the length of the amendment but to the accuracy and clarity of its wording.  Strong language avoids vagueness and clearly defines thus avoiding giving a judge an opportunity to insert their own opinion.

For example, in the personhood definition, if you are not sure that all unborn children are included then the Amendment might be violating Rule #1 above (Do Not Murder).  The personhood definition is so critical and important and must be correct.  Be absolutely sure, so when you take a stand you will be taking the right stand and know why.

Rule #3:  The State Must Change its Ways

A Successful Amendment contains language that places a mandate upon the state or forces the state to carry out the amendment at all levels of government.  Without such wording you rely on the state to change itself at its own pace.  A strong and more assured amendment will contain wording that does not wait for the state to change itself but forces it to do so.  The enactment of a properly worded state Personhood Amendment is the first task, the required foundation for personhood, but it alone without state enforcement is not good enough to overturn Roe and end abortion.  The state must have a track record of action in support of personhood for the unborn.  The state must have been actively treating unborn children as persons under the law in actual practice, which would include charging murder for the killing of an unborn child.  This also includes court nullification and/or aggressive repeal of abortion related laws that end with “and then you can kill the unborn child.”  In order to overturn Roe and truly end legalized abortion, the state MUST prove by its actions (laws on the books and by murder enforcement) that they truly believe that an unborn child is a person.

ROE FACT:  If an Amendment is not carried out in a state’s actions then they only prove in the Federal Courts that an unborn child is not a person and thus ends any hope of overturning Roe and ending abortion.  Why?  See Enforcement.

Rule #4:  It Must Be Capable of Overturning Roe

No matter what one’s opinion on strategy and Roe v. Wade, it is clear that upon any attempt by the state to enforce a Personhood Amendment (aka Human Life Amendment), it will face a swift and direct challenge in Federal Courts because it effectively ends abortion in that state and directly challenges Roe v. Wade.  Only one can survive, either Roe or the Amendment.  So a Successful Amendment contains language that includes Rule #1, #2, and #3 and the principles contained in How to Overturn Roe.

Comments are closed.