I thought long and hard about writing this post, because when we write endorsements here at the Rocky we discuss them first, as a team, and the resultant editorial springs from those discussions. That sure doesn't mean we agree on everything, especially in this hot-button campaign season, but it means we know how to disagree. However, I'm lucky enough to have this forum to reflect on Amendment 48, with the deepest respect to those colleagues who studied the measure and arrived at different conclusions.
For my readers out of the state/country,
Amendment 48 would define, in the Colorado constitution, a person from the moment of conception and thus afford that person inalienable basic human rights. We on the board met with both sides. Arguments against the measure range from it being an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade to something that would ban birth control or in vitro fertilization. Proponents contend that it lays the foundation for important life-related laws, to those related to abortion (to what extent the state could even override federal law) to fetal homicide (come on, Colorado, WHY is there no law against this?), and wouldn't harm cancer patients or women with ectopic pregnancies, as opponents contend.
The
Rocky's editorial opposed 48 on the grounds that it would open unknown areas to unknown levels of litigation -- a box of unknowns, basically. I don't argue with that. But the reason I can't oppose the simple declaration of personhood in Amendment 48 is that from a secular, human-rights standpoint I agree with every word.
In defense of the amendment, I stated that I believed 48 set an important bar for basic human rights. Man will be wrangling over the moment that life begins until the end of time, and even more so over what role the state should play in protecting that life. But here's what I see through that cacophony: I see activists howling in defense of reproductive freedom who won't lift a finger to help Chinese women who are not allowed to choose to
have a child. I see the stats that indicate up to 90 percent of babies with Down syndrome are aborted after prenatal testing, receiving a death sentence simply for their disability in a society that sets its own benchmark for "normality." I'm repulsed at the
rates of involuntary euthanasia in
Holland (that country where they're supposed to be so enlightened about "death with dignity"), and the sickening, Nazi-esque
Groningen Protocol by which Dutch doctors can kill an infant (most reported cases have been spina bifida patients) if they determine that "quality of life" will be insufficient by their societal benchmark.
The Jerusalem Talmud states "Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire
world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an
entire world." Do we as human beings have the right to rank the lives of others as more or less important, worth saving or fit to be destroyed, based on some scale of life stages or embryonic development, by disability or ability? Do we have the right to determine what a "quality of life" is for another, and then treat that life as less valuable if it isn't up to snuff? I wish I could say I don't want to go down that road, but we've already gone down that road. And it tears down our humanity, bit by bit.
Life is deserving of the deepest care and respect from the moment it comes into existence to the moment of death. That's why I not only personally support 48, but Amendment 51 as well (for out-of-towners: a slight sales tax increase to aid woefully underfunded support services for the developmentally disabled) -- because I believe all life has intrinsic value, and I believe in putting my money where my mouth is.