Spring Break
Our View - Amendment 48 presents negatives
Issue date: 10/21/08 Section: Opinion
If passed, Amendment 48 would redefine a person, stating that life begins at the moment of conception rather than at birth.
Although the amendment would cause Americans to examine what is considered a person in our country, it presents a slew of negative side effects.
The amendment would clog up the courts because in redefining a person, many other laws, like those regarding property rights and criminal justice, would need to be retooled. Also, under such legislation, doctors would be vulnerable to criminal punishment when treating women facing a medical situation that could potentially harm that woman's unborn fetus.
This could end up putting doctors in an uncomfortable situation, forcing them to decide whether or not to treat certain illnesses in women.
Amendment 48's passing would determine that no matter whom they decided to treat, either the woman or the fetus would be at risk of harm.
Not only could doctors be penalized in certain situations, but pregnant women could face legal ramifications as well.
Women could be punished in the courts for having a miscarriage under select circumstances or for choosing to be treated for some illnesses, including cancer, tubal pregnancies and infertility.
The amendment could potentially limit access to abortions and ban the Plan B emergency contraceptive. Also other common forms of birth control, such as the monthly shot, could be limited due to the fear that they could expel a fertilized egg from a woman's body.
So, CSU, even though Amendment 48 could potentially add 9 months to your age -- allowing you to hit the bars at 20 years and 3 months old Â-- the legislation is worded in such a way that it would not only redefine a person, but also redefine the rights of American women and doctors.
Although the amendment would cause Americans to examine what is considered a person in our country, it presents a slew of negative side effects.
The amendment would clog up the courts because in redefining a person, many other laws, like those regarding property rights and criminal justice, would need to be retooled. Also, under such legislation, doctors would be vulnerable to criminal punishment when treating women facing a medical situation that could potentially harm that woman's unborn fetus.
This could end up putting doctors in an uncomfortable situation, forcing them to decide whether or not to treat certain illnesses in women.
Amendment 48's passing would determine that no matter whom they decided to treat, either the woman or the fetus would be at risk of harm.
Not only could doctors be penalized in certain situations, but pregnant women could face legal ramifications as well.
Women could be punished in the courts for having a miscarriage under select circumstances or for choosing to be treated for some illnesses, including cancer, tubal pregnancies and infertility.
The amendment could potentially limit access to abortions and ban the Plan B emergency contraceptive. Also other common forms of birth control, such as the monthly shot, could be limited due to the fear that they could expel a fertilized egg from a woman's body.
So, CSU, even though Amendment 48 could potentially add 9 months to your age -- allowing you to hit the bars at 20 years and 3 months old Â-- the legislation is worded in such a way that it would not only redefine a person, but also redefine the rights of American women and doctors.
Viewing Comments 1 - 5 of 5
Ethan Schaefer
posted 10/21/08 @ 12:46 PM MST
To be fair, I applaud the Collegian for putting this article in the Opinion section. Their first "news" article on the amendment, from 9/22, belonged there, too. (Continued…)
Nick
posted 10/21/08 @ 1:01 PM MST
What a ridiculous proposition this amendment is.
Christy
posted 10/21/08 @ 6:10 PM MST
If I had never been pregnant because I always made the right choices in life then I may be pro-life.
If I had never been pregnant because, well...I
guess, luck, it would be easy for me to be swayed into being pro-life (especially by huge pictures of aborted fetuses). (Continued…)
Diana Hsieh
posted 10/21/08 @ 6:49 PM MST
Amendment 48 doesn't just "present negatives." It's a completely unjust and indefensible attack on the rights of women to control their own bodies.
For more, see this web site outlining the case against Amendment 48:
http://www. (Continued…)
Ethan Schaefer
posted 10/22/08 @ 5:50 PM MST
Years ago, I took part in one of those pscyhological surveys that graduate students conduct right here at CSU. One of the questions stated, "Even though you are pro-life, can you admire the efforts of those who strive for abortion as a woman's right?" (That wasn't exactly the wording, but that's the best I cam remember. (Continued…)
Post a Comment