Equal Rights Amendment in Colorado.

[Digital Guerrilla]

The following is a proposed amendment to the Colorado Equal Rights Amendment The main focus of it is to define when a person becomes a person. Now the supporters of the bill say: If the state or the federal government ever defined when life began, then the rights of the unborn would be superior to the woman's right to have an abortion. If person hood was ever defined, then the case for Roe would collapse."

This is also the fear of those who are opposed as well as:"The moment of fertilization is not a medical definition and is almost impossible to determine outside of a petri dish. So defining a person that way interferes with a lot of things including the practice of medicine," said Dr. Mary Fairbanks, a family practitioner. "Medical providers who treat women of reproductive age would be at heightened risk of lawsuits if the care they provide could potentially affect a woman's fertilized egg." And:"They are using this so-called legal strategy in order to invalidate a woman's right to privacy and a woman's right to choose."

So I ask you after reading it what do you believe?

The Colorado Equal Rights Amendment, or CERA, is a initiated amendment to the Colorado constitution. The committee supporting the measure, Colorado for Equal Rights, announced in July 2007 their intention to "define exactly what a person is under the laws of Colorado."

The approved ballot title reads:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term

[Sneakgab]

If they want to make abortion illegal, then why don't they just make ABORTION illegal instead of coming up with this cr@p that will also probably interfere or outright prevent a lot of medical research. Unless they felt that medical research was ''evil'' or ''bad'' too.

Honestly, even most pro-life people wouldn't consider an egg fertilized just yesterday to be ''alive'' or a person. Maybe they should next enact laws to protect our semen? Perhaps cells somehow next?

Maybe they really think these lumps of tissue (at some of the earlier stages, there wouldn't even be enough to call it tissue) are worthy of being labeled a person?

If they feel that, then they should ban abortion and THEN make this declaration so people don't see it as probably being a round about way of banning abortion.

Isn't there already a medical definition of what a person is? You would expect something so simple to have already been defined thus far in medical history right?

Of course, they just shouldn't ANY of that senseless nonsense.

Maybe the govt should leave such matters to people who actually have a reasonable chance of knowing what they're talking about (govternment behavior thus far has indicated that the people in power obviously don't on pretty much all topics).

Well, I suspect the abortion topic details most board member's views on this clearly enough.