STEM CELL BATTLES

When does life begin? When does body tissue inside the woman become a full-fledged person, a human being, with standing in a court of law? The “personhood” issue hinges on that question, argued over for centuries by philosophers, religionists, and lawyers.  Opinions vary: some hold that legal life begins well after the child is born. Others cite viability as the standard, when the child can survive on its own; others extend legal protections to the unborn child from the moment it first stirs inside the mother, the “quickening”.  But the most extreme definition of the beginning of life is fertilization, the instant when sperm meets egg, the microscopic one-celled blastocyst stage. Enshrining that definition into law is the goal of the personhood movement.

 

Under that definition, every blastocyst in America would have full standing in a court of law. This could threaten the legality of embryonic stem cell research, birth control, the In Vitro Fertility (IVF) procedure—and a woman’s right to choose. 

 

 “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s (Roe’s) case, of course collapses, for the fetus’s right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the fourteenth Amendment.” –U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, Roe v. Wade decision.

 

Often referred to as “Human Life” legislation, many bills with personhood language have been offered, at both state and federal levels.

  

On the national front,  for instance, since the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe V. Wade,  there have been ”more than 330…proposals…called a Human Life Amendment…introduced in Congress.”— http://www.humanlifeamendment.info

 

Among the many variations on the personhood issue are so-called “conscience” laws, which provide legal protection for any pharmacist/doctor/researcher who refuses to participate in “life-destroying” stem cell research. Such “protection” opens him/her to ideological pressure. Personhood plays a role in laws about crimes against “the unborn”, like the Lacy Peterson law, which defines life as beginning at the blastocyst level. The Bush Administration even added personhood language into the

S-chip child insurance program, allegedly to help the mother, although the Clinton Administration had already done so without the need for the additional language. President Bush has also requested that blastocysts be protected as human subjects in medical research regulation.

 

Do such laws threaten embryonic stem cell research? A Cook County judgment in 2005 called a destroyed embryo at an IVF clinic a “wrongful death”. Also, note the following chilling paragraph about a law passed in Pennsylvania in 1996—and which is still in effect today. 

 

“In floor debates the primary sponsor of the legislation was asked if a person who intentionally knocked over a Petri dish of fertilized eggs could be charged with multiple homicides. He responded, “If you knew, and it was your intent, then yes.”

 

(Importantly, the above law was based on a model developed by an anti-abortion group, Americans United for Life, (AUL), whose motto is, "Changing Law to Protect Human Life, State by State".  ^--http://www.aul.org/Your_State. The organization has also written a book: AUL LEGAL GUIDE 2007: “Defending Life 2007”, Proven Strategies for a Pro-Life America” (AUL), suggesting ways to block embryonic stem cell research in every state.)

 

How many states have personhood regulations? The following is my best estimate: based on numerous sources. To name a few: Kimberly Love of CAMR is a key worker in stem cell research legislation knowledge. Patrick Kelly of BIO has in depth coverage of this issue. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is thorough in its opposition. Americans United for Life, mentioned before, is an anti-abortion ideological group. www.personhood.net listed several personhood (Human Life Amendments) below. Another important source is the National Conference of State Legislatures: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/Genetics/embfet.htm.

 

 If anyone can find mistakes or has information about any of the following, please contact me.

 

           STATE “PERSONHOOD” REGULATIONS:  Initiatives, Amendments, Laws

 

ARKANSAS:  (pending law):  AUL: Amendment 68, “protect life of every unborn child from conception to birth…to extent permitted by Federal Government.” Bans SCNT. Note the following (from Governor Huckabee’s campaign website). “Gov. Huckabee … as governor of Arkansas… passed a state "Human Life Amendment" which says that "the policy of Arkansas is to protect the life of every unborn child from conception to birth." Arkansas Amendment 68 will take effect the moment that Roe vs. Wade is reversed. He is especially supportive of … the passage of H.R. 536, the (national)  Paramount Right to Life Amendment...” www.personhood.net. 

 

COLORADO : (pending initiative): Human Life Amendment. Major initiative, backed by “500 churches” according to its literature: signature gathering complete, has turned in 131,000 signatures (not verified) only 76,000 are needed, so will almost certainly be on the November ballot.

http://coloradoforequalrights.com/files/initiativetext.pdf
 

GEORGIA : (pending bill): House Bill 1, defines life as beginning at conception. “(a) The State of Georgia has the duty to protect all innocent life from the moment of conception until natural death. We know that life begins at conception.” Georgia is also the home of the Human Life Amendment, a national attempt to “personalize” blastocysts.

  

KENTUCKY: (current law): (AUL) “definition of “person” for purposes of Kentucky homicide laws includes “an unborn child from the moment of conception.” 

 

LOUISIANA: (current law): AUL-- “By law, IVF-created embryos are defined as juridical persons…the unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is therefore a legal person…” NSCL—prohibits research on…embryo.” 

  

MICHIGAN: (defeated.) A personhood law was attempted a couple years ago, but did not advance, and is not considered viable. It was titled the Michigan Prenatal Child Protection Act, and contained the following typical language for bills of this nature: “The right to due process, whereby no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, guaranteed in Article 1 Section 17, and the right to equal protection of the law, guaranteed in Article 1, Section 2, vest at conception.A 'person' for the purposes of the Constitution and laws of the State of Michigan, exists from the moment of conception."

  

MONTANA : (pending initiative) Montana Personhood Amendment, ci-100, gathering signatures for 2008 ballot. Rep. Rick Jore states: “person”…gets right to the heart of the abortion debate. The fact that human life begins at conception is the only sure foundation of the pro-life argument…”—http:www.life2008.org

 

OREGON:  (unclear) There are right-to-life statements about a personhood amendment in the works, but I cannot verify it. However, the Oregon Republican party contains the following language: “We reaffirm President Reagan's Personhood Proclamation of January 14, 1988 in which he declares: "the inalienable personhood of every American from the moment of conception until death."

 

PENNSYLVANIA: (current law) AUL: “prohibits harmful experimentation on any “unborn child”, defined as “an individual or the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth.” This is apparently state law.

 

SOUTH CAROLINA: (pending bill) Right to Life Act (S.313, H.3284) contains personhood language. 

 

SOUTH DAKOTA : (defeated) “Woman’s Health and Human Life Protection Act.” Defeated in voter referendum. Contained language: “Life begins at conception”, and “the guarantee of due process of law under the Constitution of South Dakota applies equally to born and unborn human beings.”

 

Virginia - HB 2797: (pending bill) A BILL to extend the constitutionally guaranteed right to enjoyment of life to preborn human beings from the moment of fertilization.  http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?071+ful+HB2797