More on Amendment 62: People Still Have to Be Born in Colorado

In a long night of bad news for the pro-choice community and for basically every other sector of the larger progressive movement, there was at least one important victory.

Amendment 62, the so-called “personhood” amendment, went down to defeat by a large margin–72 percent voting against to 28 percent voting as of this writing. 

This is the second time it has been defeated.

We’ve written quite a bit here about Amendment 62 (including work done by Wendy Norris, Robin Marty, Amie Newman and me this past year), and have closely followed the movement that seeks to convey personhood on fertilized eggs.  The Colorado amendment, which was first attempted in 2008, would have mandated that a fertilized egg have the same rights as a born human person from the moment of conception.

It would have outlawed abortion at every stage of gestation, would have outlawed all forms of hormonal contraception, and would have made it difficult if not impossible for pregnant women to receive medical treatment if there was any chance of harming the pregnancy.  In short, it would have privileged the survival of a fertilized egg over a living, breathing woman.

As we noted earlier and according to NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, Amendment 62, if passed, would have:

Increased unintended and unwanted pregnancies.

The most effective forms of birth control like the pill, injectibles like Implanon and Depo-Provera, NuvaRing, the patch, and IUDs work primarily by inhibiting release of an egg into the womb. They also alter the lining of a woman’s uterine wall in a way that makes the uterus inhospitable to fertilized eggs, thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg if fertilization does occur — preventing a pregnancy from occurring. By giving rights to fertilized eggs, Amendment 62 would make it illegal to use these forms of birth control. 

Severely restricted medical research and advances in reproductive technology

One of the most common forms of assisted reproductive technology is in-vitro fertilization, where several fertilized eggs are created in a lab environment. Once created, some of these fertilized eggs are injected into a woman’s body with the hope that implantation will occur and the woman’s body will begin producing the hormones necessary to sustain a pregnancy. Because of the cost of this procedure, more fertilized eggs are usually produced than are used. Giving legal rights to fertilized eggs could ban in-vitro fertilization — as well as some stem cell research that is being used to find cures for chronic diseases and disabilities.

Ignores the prevalence of miscarriage and opened the door for criminal investigations into miscarriages and situations when a woman’s body rejected implantation of a fertilized egg:

Amendment 62 fails to recognize the prevalence of miscarriages (both when a woman is aware of being pregnant and when she is not) and nonimplantation – even when a woman is not using a contraceptive method that can inhibit implantation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists estimates that between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant.   

Subjected women facing ectopic pregnancies to intrusion by politicians and the courts.

Ectopic pregnancies occur when a fertilized egg implants outside of the uterus, such as in the fallopian tube or cervix. Because the location of implantation is not large enough to allow full gestation of the developing fetus, an ectopic pregnancy could result in the rupture of the fallopian tube, cervix, or other organ where implantation occurred if the pregnancy is not removed.

Tonight, the people of Colorado rejected this dangerous amendment by a wide margin.  It is clear, however, that its proponents will be back, and will be trying to pass similar amendments in other states, such as Mississippi.  We will be tracking these as well.

NOTE: This post first appeared on the blog RH Reality Check.

by Peaco Todd, Care2 blogger
By Jodi Jacobson, Editor-in-Chief, RH Reality Check


Barbara Erdman
Barbara Erdman7 years ago

Thanx for the article.

April Thompson
April Thompson7 years ago

Thank God! Some people actually have commonsense!

Julie F.
Julie F7 years ago

GREAT article. thanks.

Sharon Karson
Sharon Karson7 years ago

Thanks for this brilliant article. It is one of the first I've seen that addressed some of the potential legal ramifications for those who have natural abortions (the medical term for miscarriages). As a Colorado resident, I have fought this amendment twice and will fight it if it ever comes up again. I find this drive to control a woman's fertility perplexing. Up until the 20th century even the Catholic church didn't consider a fertilized egg a person. A child wasn't considered a person until it had drawn its first breath. They practiced baptism at birth because once a child had drawn breath they were subject to original sin. Until then the child returned to paradise if the pregnancy terminated.

Brittany Dudas
Brittany D7 years ago

These people would do anything to keep a woman from saving herself. It's an egg. The woman is more important.

Kha Bliss
Past Member 7 years ago

Is it me, or are we just becoming more crazy?!? Be thankful for any shred of intelligence some us still have left!

Janet R.
Janet R7 years ago

Well, I am glad this was defeated but I really can't say much about Colorado since I live in Florida, a state where a man who was a CEO of a company that was fined 1.7 million for Medicare fraud just became our governor. So, we have our own stupids living among us so I shouldn't comment on other states stupids.

Aludra N.
susan m7 years ago

Frankly I am astonished that this insane nonsense ever made it to the ballot. It is wrong on oh so many levels.. but it is all based on the idea that they soul enters the body at conception. Obviously these arrogant fools are basically saying they are God, or that God speaks directly to them. How convenient for them that God says what they want to hear. What rubbish. If their assertions are true where is the proof... where is the science to support their claims - there isn't any because no one but the Creator knows when what happens. To say they know is so arrogant it just amazes me.
The are old, rich white men who cannot stand the idea that a woman could have any power, even over their own body. It has nothing to do with life, or religion, that is just a smoke screen for their plan to continue to treat women like property and reduce them to incubators. Sick, and the thought that some women actually probably voted for this slime is even worse. Wake up you stupid idiots. Sovereignty over your own body is the most basic human right.

Sharon H.
Sharon H7 years ago

To all you pro-lifers..or as I see it, anti-abortioners many children do you have and if you have any, are you fully supporting them by providing food, shelter, education, medical care, safety, and any other thing a WOMAN is supposed to do if she carries a rape, incest, or any other unwanted pregnancy to term? You sit back and pass judgment on women for wanting to control their bodies, but think the man should go away scott free. I don't see you getting all indignant to any men who got these women pregnant, or raping them or having sex with their sister, daughter, niece, etc. Where's your outrage there? Tell me because I've NEVER seen any of it from anyone on these boards who are against abortion address them....EVER!!

Joshua I.
Joshua I7 years ago

A parasitical status-quo is only seeking to guarantee its assurance of a New ECONOMIC-SLAVE to use, and abuse, and destroy. That way, these PARASITICAL-Authorities don't have to recognize that a Human Being has VALUE. And, as long as they can deny YOU the destiny you were born to achieve, it is YOU who loose, and they are enriching themselves by DEFEATING Human Evolution. STOP FEEDING THE PARASITICAL AUTHORITIES WITH NEW-BORN HUMAN LIFE, And WITH YOUR OWN VALUE!!....YOUR VALUE IS GREATER THAT THE PARASITICAL AUTHORITY; Why, because you are THE HOST, and the PARASITE is living off YOUR MMIND and Your EFFORTS......