In the News
Another dirty lawsuit filed against Personhood in Alaska by the duo of death PP and ACLU
New fight develops over rights of fetuses
ABORTION ISSUE: Lawsuit filed to keep initiative off the ballot.
By SEAN COCKERHAM
scockerham@adn.com
Published: November 28th, 2009 01:31 AM
Last Modified: November 28th, 2009 01:31 AM
A ballot initiative that sponsors hope will outlaw abortion in Alaska by declaring fetuses to be “legal persons” appears headed for a court fight.
It’s questionable whether the initiative could actually lead to abortion being illegal — the state attorney general issued an opinion that it wouldn’t. But opponents argue the measure is so broad it could have huge consequences regardless of whether it halts any abortions, ranging from women potentially sued following miscarriages to a legal argument that fetuses should be receiving Permanent Fund dividend checks.
“It is just insane,” said Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of the Alaska Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU is supporting a lawsuit filed this week by plaintiffs that include Vic Fischer, a former Democratic legislator and delegate to the state constitutional convention. The suit argues that Lt. Gov. Craig Campbell shouldn’t have certified the measure and seeks to stop the sponsors from collecting signatures to get it on the ballot.
Initiative sponsor Christopher Kurka hadn’t heard of the lawsuit before being contacted by a reporter about it. But he said opponents are attempting to confuse a basic issue of civil rights.
Kurka’s effort is part of a nationwide push to put “personhood” initiatives on state ballots. The movement focuses on writings by Justice Harry Blackmun in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision that established abortion rights nationally. Blackmun indicated that a fetus would be protected if its personhood were established.
Kurka said that would allow an unborn child the same rights under the 14th amendment as if the mother had a baby, decided she didn’t want it, and tried to kill it.
“So, basically, what we’re doing here is if we say that we recognize the unborn as persons, then a woman’s right to choose or a right to privacy doesn’t matter (just like) she doesn’t have a right to kill her child after it’s born,” Kurka said.
The ballot measure he’s sponsored seeks to put in law that “all human beings, from the beginning of their biological development as human organisms, including the single-cell embryo … shall be recognized as legal persons in the state of Alaska.”
The state attorney general’s office issued an opinion that any initiative trying to ban abortions would be clearly unconstitutional because of Roe v. Wade. But it still gave the green light for the “personhood” initiative to go forward.
Attorney General Dan Sullivan did suggest the petition include a disclaimer: that it “would not amend or repeal existing state law regulating abortion, but could impact some areas of the law, including criminal law, to extend rights and protections prior to birth.” Campbell added that wording and certified the measure so sponsors can go to get the signatures needed to get on the ballot.
Kurka has a different view than the attorney general. He said if his initiative passes and Alaska recognizes the unborn as “persons,” they would be entitled to the same legal protection from crime as anyone else. So abortion would be considered murder, or at least manslaughter, he said. Kurka said he’d likely go to legislators if the initiative passes and ask them to change penal codes to reflect it.
He said the signature-gathering effort to get the measure on the 2010 ballot is expected to begin next month. It will take 32,734 names on the petition for it to go before voters in a statewide election, unless the lawsuit filed this week against the initiative shuts the effort down.
The lawsuit argues that Campbell should never have certified the measure. The plaintiffs contend the proposal has far-reaching potential consequences and there is no way voters can know what it might mean for state laws if it passed.
The ACLU’s Mittman said it would open the door to someone suing on behalf of a single-celled embryo for anything an adult could now go to court for under Alaska law.
He said certain contraception, including the morning-after pill and the intrauterine device, or IUD, could be banned. Someone could also sue a woman who had a miscarriage, Mittman said, by arguing, for example, that she was negligent by going skiing when it was foreseeable she would fall. Legal persons have a variety of rights, Mittman said, including entitlement to permanent fund checks.
“So what’s to stop somebody from suing on behalf of an embryo to receive a permanent fund dividend check?” Mittman said. “I mean, how can they not get one if they are a legal person?”
Initiative sponsor Kurka argued that only citizens can receive dividends and that citizens must be born. He said opponents are using scare tactics and absurd scenarios to cloud the issue. “It’s about whether or not we as a society are going to recognize the unborn as legal persons and call it for what it is,” he said.
Find Sean Cockerham online at adn.com/contact/scockerham or call him at 257-4344.
Challenge to NV personhood initiative that would outlaw abortion expected
By Associated Press
November 12, 2009 | 3:48 p.m.
CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) — A legal challenge is expected to be filed by the end of the day against a proposed Nevada ballot measure that seeks to define a person and override Nevada’s abortion laws.
The American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood plan to file the challenge late Thursday in Carson City District Court on behalf of a doctor, pharmacist and a pregnant woman.
Among other things, attorneys say the suit will argue that the description of the initiative’s purpose violates a single-subject rule and is misleading.
The Nevada “personhood” initiative was filed last month by Richard Ziser, a conservative activist in Las Vegas. It seeks to define a person and extend due process rights to “everyone possessing a human genome” from the beginning of biological development through end of life.
NEWSWEEK FEATURES PERSONHOOD STORY
Click Here to Read the Newsweek Story
Just days after the Personhood story broke on WorldNetDaily.com, Newsweek has published an in depth story on Personhood that confirms the postition of Personhood at the vanguard of the pro-life movement.
In one short year, principled pro-life measures around the country are already present in more than half of the country's states, and we are now educating millions.
Thanks for your help in doing this. Now we must continue to fight, now more than ever.
With increased publicity come increased attacks from pro-abortion forces. In Missouri, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have already launched a law suit to stop Personhood. In Nevada, a lawsuit is expected any day, and in Colorado, the propaganda wing of Planned Parenthood, is beginning to spread lies about our organization in the hopes of discrediting our efforts.
All of these attacks are good signs that we are on the right path, but it also means we need your help more than ever. Please continue to pray for personhood efforts around the country.
God bless you,
Personhood Colorado
Personhood Is Growing, And A Big Fight Is Brewing
Personhood USA is on fire! Not only are 33 states now actively pursuing personhood measures all over the country, we are also influencing the culture in ways that prove that God is blessing all of our efforts.
Just this last week, the TV show “Law and Order” used language directly out of our personhood campaigns in order to make the case for the dignity of all human beings, especially those in the womb. The connection between the Law and Order episode and Personhood USA is explained on the pages of one of the web’s most visited conservative and libertarian news sources, World Net Daily. Read the story below:
NBC show defends unborn World Net Daily article by Brian Rohrbough 10/31/09
Personhood USA was also the focus of an exclusive, front-page article on World Net Daily that is reaching tens of thousands of folks. These articles are literally lighting up our website with hundreds of new volunteers for Personhood.
'Personhood' movement explodes in 32 states World Net Daily Exclusive Article by Chelsea Schilling 10/31/09
Please make sure you participate in the poll at the end of the above-mentioned story. Currently, 95% of the over 1500 people polled are excited and supportive of Personhood!
Your support of Personhood USA and God’s blessing has made all of this possible. Personhood USA needs your support to keep feeding the state efforts and continue to feed the firestorm of excitement.
Personhood USA is truly grass roots. As you know, our philosophy is to provide everything, our talents, our treasure, and our support to the local groups. We do this until it hurts, until we have no more to give. We have an opening to really bring personhood to the fore of the national debate on abortion, but we need your help. Five dollars, ten dollars, twenty dollars, fifty dollars; whatever you can give will be used to support the states as they stand up for the inalienable rights of the preborn child.
PLEASE CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO PERSONHOOD USA NOW
Another exciting thing happened this week. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU sued the state of Missouri to stop two pro-life popular initiatives, one of them withdrew after the suit was announced, the other, the Personhood amendment, said, BRING IT ON!
We can’t think of a better compliment than a lawsuit from these two evil organizations.
With your help and God’s blessing, we vow to fight Planned Parenthood and the ACLU in court and in the court of public opinion. Planned Parenthood of Missouri is about to find out that Personhood USA’s motto that “we will not stop, until every child is protected by love and by law,” is not mere rhetoric.
PLEASE CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO PERSONHOOD USA NOW
These are exciting times to be a part of the personhood movement. We are excited that you are a part of this, and we feel blessed to be able to fight this noble fight together.
God bless you,
Keith Mason
Cal Zastrow
Gualberto Garcia Jones
Personhood Movement Explodes in 32 States (World Net Daily)
World Net Daily, a leading conservative website has posted this story on the amazing progress of Personhood measures around the country.
Susan G Komen Refunds Money To Personhood Mississippi
Wow this is great. To find out more about the personhood effort in Mississippi please visit www.personhoodmississippi.com
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
October 23, 2009
Jackson, MS (LifeNews.com) -- Runner in Mississippi who had pledged funds for the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure got their money back after learning that the breast cancer research group has made donations to the Planned Parenthood abortion business and denies the abortion-breast cancer link.
A large group of Mississippi homeschoolers and their parents who frequently run for charitable causes signed up for the Komen race.
But after learning that Komen chapters gave more than $700,000 to Planned Parenthood in one year alone, they backed out and asked for a refund.
Steve Crampton of the homeschool cross-country running team "The Spartans" talked with the Internet web news site OneNewsNow.
"We asked [the Komen Foundation] for our money back, [and] they agreed to refund us graciously," he said.
Crampton told ONN that the pro-life runners came up with their own version of the race.
He said, "[But] rather than have a weekend where we didn't run at all, we decided [to try to] put something together ourselves. So it was pretty much last minute, but what has been birthed here is the 'Race for the Unborn.'"
Proceeds from the Race for the Unborn will support the Mississippi personhood amendment that some pro-life advocates are supporting to attempt to change the state constitution to recognize the unborn.
"We have many folks already pre-registered for the race. We expect it's going to be a great event," he told the news service. "So it's one of these occasions where we've, by God's grace, turned a negative into a wonderful positive -- and we think we can really do something to protect the unborn here."
When they support Komen, Americans may not be aware that Komen's own figures show it gave $711,485 from April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006 to Planned Parenthood abortion businesses and at least $726,445 for 2006-2007. http://www.lifenews.com/nat5553.html
Susan G. Komen for the Cure spokeswoman Rebecca Gibson previously confirmed that at least 19 of the 122 Komen affiliates made grants to Planned Parenthood.
The amount of the grants from Komen affiliates to Planned Parenthood appears to be on the rise and 25 Komen affiliates now have a partnership with the abortion business.
Komen officials have dismissed the grants saying they are for breast cancer screenings, but pro-life advocates say the money is fungible and that it frees up funds Planned Parenthood could use for breast screenings but instead uses on abortions.
Catholic Bishop Vasa of the Oregon Diocese of Baker Supports Personhood
Americans are confused about life
By Bishop Robert Vasa 
BEND — I had the good fortune while listening to a Christian television station to hear a congressman from Georgia who was talking about the Sanctity of Human Life Act. This is a bill introduced in November, 2007, that defines human life as beginning at fertilization and would protect all human life even that life created by human cloning or in-vitro fertilization. This is not at all new news, but hearing the congressman speak gave me a renewed sense of just how complacent and confused we are in the United States about the worth and dignity of human life.
The language of the bill is both instructive and challenging: “The right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person. No one in these United States could take exception to this. The congressman talked about the relativistic and rather arbitrary method of determining just who is that person worthy of the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. Certainly that “person” is every human being whose birth process has been completed. There is nothing, however, in the birth process that changes anything of the nature of the one who is brought to birth. Thus the person who is fully delivered is the same “person” he or she was three or five minutes earlier. That which is essential to personhood, having the nature of a human being, is not changed by birth. What changes is what philosophers identify as the “accidents.” For instance, a doll possesses the “nature” of a doll. A doll is, for the sake of this discussion, a miniature human creation resembling a human being. You may put that doll in a box where no one sees it and it is still, by its own nature, a doll. That doll may be loved or completely neglected and it is still a doll. You may dress it in red, yellow, orange or blue and it is still a doll. You may even paint it a variety of colors and even disfigure it but it still remains a doll unless it is nearly destroyed. If you do not believe this try to take a beloved “doll,” which has long since lost its clear appearance as a doll, from its child owner. The doll’s location, relationship with persons, dress color or type, skin color, size and even general physical condition are all accidents, not essentials. None of these things change the “nature” of the doll. We know this now, though it was not always known or believed, in relation to the color of a person’s skin. That color or the national origin of a human being does not alter that which is essential to being a human being.
Unfortunately, by a kind of legal sleight of hand the Supreme Court has managed to overlook what is essential about a human being, his or her human nature, and make a distinction of personhood based on accidents of location, relationship, size, appearance, and degree of dependence. None of these things changes the nature of a human being and so none of these things should be used as ploys to grant or deny basic human rights. Yet, this is precisely what the Supreme Court has done.
The congressman’s bill seeks to correct this erroneous distinction by focusing precisely on that one thing which is essential. The only pertinent question should be: Is this a metabolizing biological entity of human origin with the genetic makeup of a human being? The bill incorporates this essential definition into law: “The life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent . . . at which time every human being shall have the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.”
In making his case to his fellow congressmen, the bill’s author said: “We have a moral and constitutional obligation to protect and defend every precious soul that comes into existence.” The use of the word “soul” in this context refers more to human being than a specific spiritual reality we in the Catholic Church would identify as one’s “immortal soul.” It would not be proper to try to put into civil law this spiritual understanding of the nature of man. Identifying the nature of a human being, however, is not an attempt to impose anyone’s religious belief on someone else. It is rather the acceptance of a biological and scientific fact. That which is essential to the definition of a human being is already present from the moment the human ovum is fertilized by human sperm. Everything else is accident.
In keeping with this proper understanding of that which is essential to the human being, the Sanctity of Human Life Act declares that: “the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.” This is not a statement of religious belief but rather the logically consistent application of sound philosophical and biological reasoning.
Some new human entity is created when the human sperm and human ovum unite. That new entity begins a whole new form of living from the moment of fertilization. That new entity does not evolve into something else over the period he or she develops. He or she does not evolve from plant matter to animal matter or to a human being after passing through the birth canal. He or she undergoes no essential changes from what he or she possesses at the beginning. That which is granted to the baby who has been fully born is based legally on a number of accidents when it ought to be based on that which is essential.
The Sanctity of Human Life Act does not seek to introduce some inane legal fiction, but rather seeks to overturn a faulty legal fiction. The fiction, in which we are presently living, inanely pretends that human beings are not really human beings unless the Supreme Court passes judgment on them and declares them to be so. African slaves were always human beings and the Supreme Court decisions said or did nothing to change that. It simply recognized the truth. The Sanctity of Human Life Act seeks legal recognition of the same truth.
Personhood USA is leading the charge of the Personhood Movement, Please help us push forward with your donation today !
Get press release updates
