Colorado should reject personhood once again

Her name is ToshikoDignam. She is amarried, 35year-oldwoman pregnant for the first time and eager for her delivery date in March 2015.

She is also a fierce opponent of Amendment 67, the measure on November’s ballot that would confer the status of “personhood” on a fetus, from the moment of conception, and enshrine it in the Colorado Constitution.

“The wording of the proposed amendment is deliberately deceptive,” says Dignam, who joined at least 30 other young women and men on a hot September day to go door-to-door to educate voters. “It claims to protect women and their pregnancies, but instead it threatens our rights and endangers our health.”

The amendment doesn’t mention abortion, but in truth, it is simply the latest attempt in Colorado to ban all abortions, even in cases where women have been the victims of rape or incest.

That means thatwomenwho choose abortion for any reason could be criminally chargedwith a felony, and so could their doctors.

It also means that a woman who suffers an unwanted miscarriage could be charged with manslaughter.

And women who might never expect a miscarriage and who would never choose abortion should realize they are endangered, too.

Under Amendment 67, the most effective kinds of birth control— the pill, intrauterine devices, most types of emergency contraception, in fact, any method that would prevent the fertilized egg (designated by Amendment 67 as a “person”) from being implanted in the uterus— could be banned.

Banning birth control? Arewe really having this conversation in 2014?

A fewyears ago, I asked a group of activist youngwomenwhat theywere passionate enough to march for. “Birth control!” they answered almost in unison.

The young women and men ready to march on this recent September day gave a variety of reasons for their passion. One particularly compelling argument came from Nourie Boraie, a 23-year-old American citizen who lived in Egypt until her teens. “Women do not have enough rights there,” she said. “I want to protect the many rights we have in America.”

Another canvasser, Brooke Baxa, had helped a desperate friend with a late-term health emergency come to Colorado for a medically indicated abortion.

“Whatever their personal reasons, this is the most passionate and energized group I have ever worked with,” said No On 67 organizer, Kagen Yelmene, who, at the age of 24, has led volunteer efforts in nine issue and/or candidate campaigns.

Whenever the issue is explained to them, most voters seem to understand that Amendment 67 simply goes too far.

The fact is that in Colorado, women and their pregnancies are protected already. Because of a series of tragic cases in which the fetuses of pregnant women were killed, the Colorado legislature in 2013 and 2014 passed two bills that created civil and criminal liabilities for any termination of a pregnancy without the mother’s consent. People convicted of a criminal offense can receive a potential prison sentence of up to 24 years.

Did Personhood USA, the group that initiated Amendment 67, support these wise, just and timely pieces of legislation? Of course not!

Colorado has twice rejected personhood amendments, and by overwhelming margins. I hope voters reject it again.