North Dakota's Failed Personhood Legislation

Today I have a new post up at RH Reality Check, where I talk about the defeat of the North Dakota legislation that attempted to define a fertilized egg as a person:

It was a win for the pro-choice movement, but perhaps what was most surprising was not that the legislation was defeated - the personhood movement is considered extreme even within the anti-choice movement - but how it was defeated.

Go ahead and read the whole thing.

Update on Montana "Personhood" Amendment

Yesterday I wrote about Montana's personhood amendment. It passed barely in the state senate, by 26-24. Today I caught up with Planned Parenthood's Stacy Anderson, who is working on this issue there. It turns out that pro-choicers shouldn't be too worried about Montana and what Anderson calls "extreme" legislation.

"This is actually a repeat of legislation that we beat in 2007, not only in the legislature but also in the ballot initiative process. So maybe they're thinking that the third time's the charm but they don't have the votes to get it out of the House," Anderson said.

She also told me the anti-choice legislation is about 100 votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed to pass a constitutional amendment, which is what this is proposed to be. She also had some things to say about the language, which I wondered about yesterday. While she wasn't totally sure where it had come from, she noted that there's a reason they went with this particular language, "That language has been approved by our attorney general in the ballot initiative process so I suspect they wanted to just stick with the language that they know will get though," she said. "It's literally the exact language that was used in 2007."

It also sounds like there was a broad coalition that fought the legislation in 2007, so even if the anti-choice movement in Montana did somehow manage to get enough votes, they'd still have to fight groups like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the ACLU, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and other medical groups. In other words, Anderson doesn't think this legislation is going anywhere.

"It's just unfortunate that we have to continue to talk about such an extreme piece of legislation when there's real situations with the economy and children's health insurance and prevention strategies that aren't getting near the amount of attention that they should be," Anderson said.

More 'Personhood' Legislation

Today Montana's state senate passed legislation that would define life as beginning at fertilization. It's part of the broader "personhood" movement that passed legislation in North Dakota's house (speaking of, here's an editorial from the Grand Forks Harold saying the legislation "goes much too far"). Here's from the Personhood USA press release:

Helena, Montana - 02/26/2009 - Montana's Senate passed constitutional Personhood Amendment, SB 406, in a 26-24 vote. The amendment, introduced by Senator Dan McGee, passed on its third reading on the Senate floor this morning. This is the first Personhood Amendment in U.S. history to pass a State Senate.

"Senator Dan McGee, writing the language of SB 406 himself, has shown what it truly means to be pro-life," stated Keith Mason, of Personhood USA. "Senator McGee's successful efforts on behalf of all human beings at all stages of human life are a giant step forward in historic efforts to ensure the rights and protection of every individual."

SB 406, which defines person for the purposes of application of inalienable rights, states, "All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights...person means a human being at all stages of human development of life, including the state of fertilization or conception, regardless of age, health, level of functioning, or condition of dependency."

[...]

SB 406 must continue on to pass the Montana House of Representatives with a majority vote of 74. Once it passes, it is to immediately become a part of the state's constitution. The race is on between Montana and North Dakota for the first Personhood legislation in our nation's history, as Montana's Personhood Amendment continues on to its House of Representatives, and North Dakota's Personhood legislation continues on to its Senate.

But the actual text of the legislation is somewhat vague:

Section 1. Article II, section 3, of The Constitution of the State of Montana is amended to read:

"Section 3. Inalienable rights. (1) All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.

(2) For purposes of this Article, person means a human being at all stages of human development of life, including the state of fertilization or conception, regardless of age, health, level of functioning, or condition of dependency."

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Effective date. If approved by the electorate, this amendment is effective January 1, 2011.

NEW SECTION. Section 3. Submission to electorate. This amendment shall be submitted to the qualified electors of Montana at the general election to be held in November 2010 by printing on the ballot the full title of this act and the following:

[] FOR defining person as a human being at all stages of human development of life.

[] AGAINST defining person as a human being at all stages of human development of life.

You'll notice that this legislation doesn't attempt to define life as beginning at fertilization. My thought is that it is intentionally vague and they want it to be challenged in the courts. "All stages of human life" is subjective and nonsensical. I'm having a hard time figuring out why the personhood movement isn't trying to go for the full life-begins-at-fertilization language.