Don’t be deceived about what’s really going on at the state Capitol as a handful of hyper-conservative state lawmakers make noise about the need for a law to protect pregnant women from having their unborn babies murdered.
The whole country gasped a few weeks ago when a 7-months-pregnant, Longmont woman was lured to the home of under the pretense of checking out baby clothes. In one of the most outlandish crimes to occur ever in Colorado, Lane, 35, cut the unborn baby from the the 26-year-old mother’s abdomen, drove the dead fetus to a hospital and told doctors she’d just suffered a miscarriage.
Stories quickly revealed that Lane could not be charged with the murder of the unborn baby because state law does not describe a fetus as a legal person. So while the nation is reeling from the shock that someone could do anything so morbid, Colorado’s long-settled argument over personhood begins anew.
Don’t be mislead by the idea that anyone who cruelly injures a fetus and the mother gets by the criminal justice system unscathed. Lane faces more than 100 years in prison.
Colorado has been down this road before. In 2003, lawmakers addressed people who purposely injure unborn babies and their mothers. In 2013, the law was tweaked to ensure those who deliberately harm the unborn are severely punished. At the same time, the law guarantees that the rights of the mother, and all pregnant women, aren’t usurped by well-meaning legislation with unintended consequences.
Those personhood laws, allowing for murder charges against those who harm unborn babies, exist in numerous states, and they’ve inflicted untold terror among countless women, often the poorest ones.
Critics of Colorado’s latest foray into personhood, Senate Bill 268, point out a handful of notorious cases where pregnant women who lost their babies to miscarriages are dragged into the criminal justice system, accused and usually cleared of criminal wrongdoing in the death of their unborn babies. One of the most egregious examples of this was in Utah, where in 2014 a woman pregnant with twins decided against a cesarean delivery, and one of the twins was stillborn. The Utah government prosecuted her for the death of the twin, and then later backed off when the public outcry became overwhelming. The story is just like other chilling accounts where zealous prosecutors intervene in the most private, painful aspects of women’s lives, involving pregnancy and the death of an unborn child.
That’s only one of a growing list of realities, not possibilities, that legislation like SB 268 can bring down upon Colorado women. That’s not what the bill’s proponents say, and it’s not what they want you to hear. Republican Senate President Bill Cadman of Colorado Springs is leading the charge to get this personhood law on the books. He doesn’t care that voters have overwhelmingly turned down personhood measures at the polls numerous times over the past five years. Undaunted, the backers and sponsors of those bills, far-right, ultra-religious, deep-pocket actors from outside and inside the state, keep coming back. They come back trying to trick Colorado voters into sanctioning personhood as a back-door attempt to make abortion illegal.
Cadman says that’s not what he and others want to do this time. In fact, he’s inserting language that he says specifically states that legal abortion won’t be affected by the personhood impact.
Of course it will. And of course Cadman wants that. His record of trying to restrict access to legal abortion is abundantly clear. He and his wife both worked for Focus on the Family, an organization that has worked zealously to make abortion illegal in Colorado. It’s those same bait-and-switch personalities and tactics that have left Colorado voters so opposed to personhood legislation and so distrustful of the people who promote it.
And that’s what this is really about. State law already brings down the house on anyone who would do something as unthinkable as attacking a pregnant woman and killing her baby.
Better protection against these horrendous crimes would come from a better funded mental health system that better identifies dangerously sick people before they commit crimes like this. All SB 268 would do is open the door for restricting abortion, and persecuting — as well as prosecuting — pregnant women who should never be entrapped by this kind of government intrusion. Colorado is smarter than this.
Follow @EditorDavePerry on Twitter and Facebook.
Either a human being is a person or she is not. Location or terminology does nothing to give or take away the property of “personhood”. Our intuition tells us that the death of this child should be acknowledged under the law. Why is that? It is because we know that she was not merely a clump of cells. She was a person. Her life was intrinsically valuable and it is unjust that her life was measured to “not count” under Colorado law.
Sorry pal, but to be murdered, you must be born. End of story. The laws on the books provide for severe penalties for anyone who would visit such unspeakable harm upon a pregnant woman and the child inside her. By virtue of birth we are granted citizenship and the rights, liberties and protections of the law that all American citizens are entitled. Birth.
This is simply not true. See the Scott Peterson case, among others. Birth is an arbitrary distinction to recognize that a human being has value under the law. Do you agree that every human being has the inalienable right to life?
California’s laws aren’t Colorado’s laws. If you want to talk about “arbitrary distinction,” the term “human being” certainly would qualify. At what point does a fetus gain legal rights? Our system points to birth/citizenship. Let’s cut through the stilted language and call “the inalienable right to life” you referred to as what you really mean: the criminalization of a woman’s right to choose.
“Human being” has a very clear definition in biology and embryology. It is anything but arbitrary. A human being is a living being of the species homo sapiens. As to my use of the phrase “inalienable rights”, I am using the language and principles that were used in the founding of our country. I think that is relevant. I believe all human beings have an inalienable right to life. You seem to disagree with this notion. And the case we are talking about is whether this woman in Colorado should be held accountable for taking the life of this unborn child. Do you think she should be tried for taking the life of this child?
We’re talking about the American legal system, which deals in terms of persons and citizens. The species stuff isn’t as important as defining the beginning of life as a legal entity, as a person and a citizen.
I do believe she is properly charged in the criminal justice system for her actions, and that she will eventually be convicted and spend the rest of her natural life behind bars for those actions.
What the issue before Coloradans is whether to pass a piece of legislation that is, by its own text, a personhood measure that has been defeated by statewide vote three times in recent years. It is a Trojan horse toward unraveling reproductive rights for Coloradans.
Perhaps you can outline the deficiency in the current crimes against pregnant women laws on the books in Colorado and make the case for why this new legislation is needed rather than simply enforcing current law?
“The species stuff isn’t as important as defining the beginning of life as a legal entity, as a person and a citizen.”
Ok, so you don’t want to acknowledge what science tells us. You also did not bother to define what a “person” is. The defining point of birth is arbitrary, as I said before. There is nothing about location that changes the nature of the this little girl. As far as citizenship, we don’t think illegal immigrants should be killed without consequences under the law because they aren’t citizens.
This case already outlines a major deficiency in the law. Your framing of the question shows the deficiency as well. A pregnant woman was not the only victim. An unborn child lost her life and this life needs to be acknowledged under the law.
It’s not about acknowledging or not acknowledging science. This is a discussion of the law and how it pertains to the criminal justice system. Also, “the defining point of birth is arbitrary”? The entire purpose of Cadman’s bill is to define that life begins at conception. Your argument just collapsed in on itself.
Not sure I understand your point about illegal immigrants and how it pertains to reproductive rights, but I hope it ends up making sense to someone else.
The 2013 bill that was passed with bipartisan support and signed into law by Gov. Hickenlooper calls for strict penalties for anyone who harms a pregnant woman and causes the untimely termination of her pregnancy. There is a penalty in place to keep this woman, once convicted, behind bars for the rest of her natural life. The acknowledgement you’re talking about is rewriting Colorado’s laws to give leeway to the personhood movement, of which the ultimate goal is to roll back reproductive rights for all Coloradans.
No one wants to minimize how awful this crime was or the tremendous suffering a parent-to-be goes through in such a tragic circumstance, but attempting to weaken the rights granted to Coloradans on making medical decisions for themselves in the guise of protecting the unborn is dishonest and troublesome.
“
Life does start at conception. Biology and embryology tell us this. It is not even a controversy to say that life starts at conception. An abortion wouldn’t accomplish anything otherwise.
You made a claim that “citizenship” was relevant to determine whether a human being should have protections under the law. This was to show that it is not relevant.
The acknowledgement I am talking about is lining up our jurisprudence with the truth. It is true that this child’s loss of life should be acknowledged under the law rather than ignored. It is also true that passing such a law would expose inconsistencies in our jurisprudence. So be it. It is also true that a human being’s worth is not determined by whether she is “wanted” or not. Full disclosure. I am pro-life. This lack of reason is an example of why I am pro-life.
There is no “guise”. As I said, our intuition tells us that the death of this child should be acknowledged under the law. Let’s be consistent in protecting life under the law.
This is not about aligning jurisprudence with truth. The truth is that these pieces of legislation, once made law in other states, have been used to prosecute women who have suffered miscarriages and to whittle away the rights of Americans. We already have laws on the books to properly prosecute these crimes without endangering the rights and liberties of Coloradans to make medical choices for themselves instead of the government telling them what they can and cannot do in terms of reproductive health. I can admit that taking a stand against calling this criminal act “murder” is unpopular, but you cannot admit that this bill and others like it have been routinely rejected by a large majority of Colorado voters, and that for the legislators attempting to push this bill through are using a horrific tragedy to circumvent the direct democratic process that the three previously failed personhood measures used.
I think it is improper to classify abortion as “reproductive healthcare”. The only purpose of this procedure is to end the life of an innocent human being. This is the opposite of healthcare and directly contradicts the spirit of the hippocratic oath.
It is also improper to classify abortion as a “reproductive right”. Does abortion involve intentionally killing one’s own child? Yes. There is no such thing as a “right” to intentionally kill your own child. This is a counterfeit right.
I appreciate you keeping this conversation civil and sticking to the arguments rather than resorting to name calling. With that, I will give you the last word.
I appreciate the honesty of this comment. Hopefully it’s abundantly clear that everyone values a criminal justice system where someone such as the attacker in Longmont is severely punished for their actions, whether they believe abortion should be legal or not.
You’re being naive. It’s impossible for governing officials to maintain a justice system that punishes murderers properly when those same governing officials sanction the murder of innocent people in-utero (and otherwise). And if you think it’s possible you are willfully ignorant and you are part of the problem. https://theweeklyworldview.com
But what of women that need to abort since the child will be non-viable or endanger the mother? It is a reproductive right to terminate a pregnancy for those reasons (in my opinion, it should be a right for whatever reason, but I know many don’t agree). Look at the woman who died in Ireland because she was miscarrying and they wouldn’t preform an abortion to make sure complications wouldn’t occur (sepsis, eclampsia, etc) Pregnancy and childbirth is an expensive, taxing (emotionally, physically, mentally), and dangerous event in a woman’s life. Too many people forget the dangers and hardships of pregnancy and childbirth and that is why abortion is, and should always be, a reproductive right.
It is never necessary fir the doctor, in an emergency situation, to stop and kill the baby to save the mother. That’s one of the biggest lies ever told, (and told so often that Joseph Goebbels would be proud) that it is now believed as truth by people too cowardly and deluded to admit the truth. Stop lying to yourself and others.
They wouldn’t be killing a baby, they’d be aborting a fetus. And it happens. Not very often but things happens. More often, it’s needing to abort a fetus that is already miscarrying or is non-viable (sometimes allowing it to naturally term out of the body can take too long and lead to infections or other conditions that can harm or kill the mother). Also, if I find out the fetus inside me is dead and I’m told by my doctor it could take up to a month for it to miscarry (which does actually happen), should I be forced to carry it? Have that emotional burden? Or should I be able to have it safely removed from my womb?
Removing a dead baby is not an abortion. Abortion is killing a baby in the womb. There is never a justifiable reason, medical orotherwise to kill a living child in the womb. Sometimes, tragically, a baby must be removed from the womb prematurely in order to save the life of the mother. And many of these children die because we don’t yet have the technology to preserve their lives. But the doctor does all he can for both patients. Removing a baby is different from killing a baby. And the Living God will judge your heart. And He knows the difference even if you claim you don’t. https://theweeklyworldview.com
See definitions (especially number 4):
1.
Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
2.
any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.
3.
Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage (def 1).
4.
an immature and nonviable fetus.
5.
abortus (def 2).
6.
any malformed or monstrous person, thing, etc.
7.
Biology. the arrested development of an embryo or an organ at a more or less early stage.
BTW, the greatest gift God gave to us was freewill. The ability to decide for ourselves what we should and shouldn’t do. That includes abortions. I don’t want children. Medically, I shouldn’t have children and have been told if I have an unplanned pregnancy, I should abort, so I do all I can to make sure it doesn’t happen (while still being able to enjoy sex). If an accident were to occur, I’d abort, and I truly believe God would forgive me since He is forgiving and loving instead of being the righteous and vengeful God so many of you seem to think He is.
It will be interesting to see if that line of crap (or your dictionary) are of any assistance to you on Judgment Day.
Killing someone because they are smaller and weaker than you, or because someone else calls them “unviable” is not something God will forgive the willful, unrepentant killer.
Perhaps you should stop being so judgmental and leave that to God. I know I have nothing to fear, as God loves all who seek Him. I’m Lutheran, so I don’t need to ask His forgiveness, it is already given. Why is everyone so focused on people being hurt by Him? That is not the God I have been taught, that is not the God I believe we have. If you get more pleasure out of thought of God smiting someone than going out and doing good in this world (and telling people on message boards how they’ll burn in Hell for aborting is not actually doing anything), you need to reassess your life.
Gee have you ever heard of Hell? Jesus mentions it in the New Testament. Or Luke 17:3?
I know the Lutherans barely crack open the Bible between lesbian weddings and ordaining homos these days, but you should know these things. And if you are a Christian, and you teach young girls that they can kill their babies like you did, you are not fulfilling your Christian calling.
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/highlands-crescenthill/2015/04/25/third-lutheran-ordains-first-gay-partnered-pastor/26376783/
Haha, that’s right, as a Lutheran we are accepting of gay marriage. BTW, I haven’t aborted. And yes, we do crack open the Bible. We have catechism and spend years going over the Bible. Clearly we won’t see eye to eye since I am coming from a loving place and you are too hellbent on seeing the wrath of God.
Keep promoting homosexuality and murder and you will see the wrath of God. And what I want to see won’t matter a wit. I would prefer to see you repent.
Can you point to an example where a woman was prosecuted for a miscarriage under a similar law?
Here are just a few: https://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/arrested-having-miscarriage-7-appalling-instances-where-pregnant-women-were
That link just has a list of incidences. Are there links to news stories about each incident that would have details of the circumstances? Of the list you linked to only one seemed to involve a natural miscarriage if we are to believe that link. The rest referenced women doing an activity that is harmful to their child. Similar consequences would occur if a mother gave her child crack cocaine. Do you have links to a specific incident that provides the circumstances? Btw the Gutmacher institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood.
Your link references a NYT op/ed article (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/opinion/pregnant-and-no-civil-rights.html?_r=0) that references a peer reviewed journal (link below). The journal article does not contain some of the cases mentioned in your link or the NYT piece. The journal article looked at 413 cases from 1973 to 2005. 84% of these cases the woman reported the use of an illegal drug, all of which are harmful to children; alcohol use was in a different category. Most of the cases cited occurred around 1990 at the height of the crack cocaine epidemic. They presented facts on 5 of the cases (below). I see no case of a woman being prosecuted for natural miscarriage. Your statement, your link and the NYT piece are dishonest.
Here is the text from the Journal Article:
“In South Carolina, Regina McKnight, a twenty-one-year-old African American woman, unexpectedly suffered a stillbirth. Although it would later be shown that the stillbirth was the result of an infection, McKnight was arrested and charged with homicide by child abuse. The state alleged that McKnight caused the stillbirth as a result of her cocaine use.” I hope you would agree, exposing your kids to cocaine is wrong.
“Laura Pemberton, a white woman, was in active labor at her home in Florida. Doctors, aware of this, believed that she was posing a risk to the life
of her unborn child by attempting to have a vaginal birth after having had a previous cesarean surgery (VBAC).” I agree this case was a miscarriage of justice but it is not the result of a personhood law but the corrupt legal system in Florida (Zimmerman?).
“Rachael Lowe, a twenty-year-old pregnant woman, voluntarily went to Waukesha Memorial Hospital in Wisconsin to seek help for her addiction
to the opiate Oxycontin. Some hospital staff responded by reporting Lowe to state authorities under Wisconsin’s “cocaine mom” law, a statute in the Children’s Code that allows the state to take a pregnant woman into custody if it believes that the “expectant mother habitually lacks self-control
in the use of alcohol beverages, controlled substances or controlled substance analogs.”12” Exposing your kids to opiates is just as bad as exposing them to cocaine. Are you for the abolition of laws that protect children from drug using mothers?
“Martina Greywind, a twenty-eight-year-old homeless Native American woman from Fargo, North Dakota, was arrested when she was approximately twelve weeks pregnant. She was charged with reckless endangerment, based on the claim that by inhaling paint fumes she was creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to her unborn child.” This woman ended up killing her child via an abortion.
“In Louisiana, Michelle Marie Greenup, a twenty-six-year-old African American woman, went to a hospital complaining of bleeding and stomach pain. Doctors suspected that she had recently given birth and contacted law enforcement authorities. After repeated police interrogations, Greenup “confessed” that the baby was born alive, and it died because she had failed to provide it with proper care. Greenup was charged with second-degree murder and was incarcerated. Eventually counsel for Greenup obtained her medical records, which revealed that the fetus could not have been older than between eleven to fifteen weeks and that prior to the miscarriage Greenup had been given Depo-Provera, a contraceptive injection that may cause a miscarriage if administered to a woman who is already pregnant.” Here the mother caused her own miscarriage.
https://jhppl.dukejournals.org/content/38/2/299.full.pdf?sid=b0811f36-d4e4-4b51-a830-e175e6eee40c%2520%2520For%2520those%2520cases%2520that%2520are%2520not%2520mentioned%2520in%2520the%2520article%2520-what%2520do%2520you%2520need%3f
Posting discredited, unrelated, exaggerated and/or otherwise embellished stories from a left wing web site does not qualify as a legitimate example.
So of a law was passed that state that individuals during their 32nd year of age lose all their rights and can be killed you would be ok with that? It would be the law right?
The law has to have some basis in the truth. There has to be a Truth. Otherwise the law (and life for that matter) would arbitrary and mean nothing.
I’m actually okay for killing everyone. Wipe out the entire species, we’ve obviously failed on a global scale.
Grow up. You are meant to be more than this.
Cadman is a coward who enshrines the right to kill people right in the proposed bill. That’s why it should be defeated. I’m so sick of RE-publican lawyers who call themselves pro-life, but then give further precedence to the legality of child killing in their shameful legislation.
Children don’t get full rights until they reach 18/21 years old. Can a mother choose to kill them prior to that time? Again just trying to understand your logic?
Premeditated killing of any person — defined as a person, i.e. born and alive — is murder. Your comment lacks any sort of insight into our system of laws and posits an utterly ridiculous scenario. It’s not my logic because it’s not anyone’s logic, and I’d suggest you find some yourself before again attempting to paint someone else’s clearly stated beliefs as something as reprehensible as that.
I was responding to a comment that asserted that a baby can be killed since it had not received rights (from whom?). If being able to kill someone is based on how many right have been given to them I think it is logical to ask about other individuals who have not received their full rights I.e children.
God’s opinion is the same in California and Colorado. And He will be your ultimate Judge. You should consider your position on this issue more carefully. https://theweeklyworldview.com
Your silly god has no power.
It’s by His power that you take your next breath heathen. Were it not for His creation, you could not even live, (let alone act tough). God says on Judgment Day he’ll wipe away the tears of those who love Him. And I know He’ll wipe the smirks off the faces of the likes of you as well.
if you choose to kill then you should be punished, just like the person in this case.
And what about the current system of laws in Colorado leads you to believe this woman won’t (a) be convicted for her criminal acts, and (b) punished with a lengthy prison sentence that will ensure she never harms anyone again?
she can’t be convicted for the murder of a non person.
prison is not a legit punishment for murder.
Your comment presupposes that she has not been charged with criminal wrongdoing for the death of the fetus. That’s simply not true. Go read the charging documents, it’s all there. It wouldn’t be a murder conviction, but it will send a message that Colorado will severely punish those who commit such heinous acts.
she killed two living persons she will not be charged or convicted of the murder of two living persons.
The law is wrong and they can make up anything they want to try to cover their fault.
prison is not a severe punishment.
Quick check, friend: The mother was not killed, only injured. She lost her baby in the attack.
I appreciate someone who’s not in this just for the religious fight over abortion; it’s nice to see that you’re pro-capital punishment and willing to admit it. But the death penalty is a terrible practice that does nothing to prevent crimes, and it sucks millions of taxpayer dollars toward lengthy trials and appeals. It’s a fatally flawed system, and it’s a shame we as a society continue to perpetuate it. So I disagree that prison is not a severe punishment; it should be the ONLY punishment. An eye for an eye is not justice.
The death penalty is a great practice and it is a great deterrent. Just have to look at the societies that aren’t ruled by the proctocrasy which you site as a reason it is wrong.
Caging someone like an animal is not a just punishment it and they still get to live.
I am glad mom is alive and for the death of her daughter the criminal should be put to death so others see and fear.
Since knowing they will go to prison obviously isn’t a deterrent.
What fundamentally changes about a baby the
But God grants us our rights the moment we come to be. And you will admit that to Him on Judgment Day.
‘could be sentenced up to 100 years’ Fat chance. Every day crimes have sentences that ‘could’ be punished at that rate also, they are not. This was a horrible occasion and shouldn’t be bandied about with this ‘personhood’; argument. I know you ‘abortion rights’ folks would like everything your way, but in this case, put away your fears for a moment and realize that this was murder.
The issue of personhood is as unavoidable as the issue of slavery was. It will never go away. Planned Parenthood cannot accept any recognition of the child in the womb, and pro-lifers cannot accept the denial of the basic human rights of the child. The rest is sophistry. Science and decency are with the pro-lifers, but this is about power for the abortion lobby.
Lol… liars.. making it seem like only REAL COLORADINS are pro abortion. I may be away because of ministry for the moment, but I will be back in Colorado again and I can say, I am not for killing a baby. Sure, you can throw at me every statistic and sobstory of a woman hating her baby so much that she practically commits suicide by hanger, but it doesnt change my opinion. You can bring up medical issues and things that are controversial to try to stray from the fact that allowing infanticide is wrong when you allow a woman to murder a perfectly healthy baby, but it doesn’t fool anyone (even those who are pro infanticide).
However, i am a real Coloradin. You are lieing If you believe all Coloradins think murder is ok. I am a Coloradin and I am against abortion. I am not paid for my opinion, I am not brainwashed. I simply hold all human life dear. But the life of those who are victims I stand for more than those committing murder.
PS – The word is “lying”.
Lol, yes it is. I’ll fix it right away, thank you. 🙂
“hyper-conservative” LOL!
Mr. Perry: the Personhood issue is far from settled. Except perhaps in your case. Can anyone who advocates for the murder of innocent children rightly be called a “person”?
It’s just dave perry going into his usual self righteous holier than thou enraged vicious foaming at the mouth rabid dog pony show hatred of conservatives. just ignore him.