Press Release

Personhood USA’s Live Presidential Prolife Forum, featuring Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, Congressman Ron Paul, and Texas Governor Rick Perry, nearly sold out within hours of open registration.

The Presidential Prolife Forum will be held at the Hilton Hotel in Greenville, South Carolina this Wednesday, January 18th. The event was announced late Saturday afternoon, and seats were nearly completely booked by Sunday.

“We have among the largest grassroots bases in the nation, and our volunteers are eager to ask serious questions of these candidates,” explained Keith Mason, President of Personhood USA. “The popularity of the event is indicative of the importance of the issue. It is critical that we know how each Presidential Candidate would defend life if elected as President of the United States.”

The first-ever Presidential Prolife Tele-Town Hall on December 27, which attracted over 200,000 listeners, resulted in a flood of comments and requests for a longer, more thorough Presidential Forum dedicated solely to life issues. Personhood USA and Champion the Vote responded to the demand with a live and in-person Presidential Prolife Forum on January 18th.

The event will be held on January 18, 2012, at 6:45pm, at the Hilton Hotel in Greenville, South Carolina. The Prolife Forum will be organized as a town hall meeting, with questions for the candidates posed by South Carolina voters.

“The popularity of this event is indicative of the importance of the issue,” continued Mason.“There is no issue more important than the lives of innocent children, and the Presidential Prolife Forum will reflect that. Abortion is an epidemic in the U.S., and we are looking for a President who will protect and defend every innocent human life with no exceptions.”

All candidates were invited, but Former Governor Mitt Romney did not respond to invitations to participate in the Presidential Prolife Forum. Former Governor Romney is now the only Republican Presidential Candidate who is not participating in the Presidential Prolife Forum, and the only candidate who has not signed Personhood USA’s Prolife Presidential Pledge.

Little Rock, AR -- Personhood Arkansas has resubmitted a state constitutional amendment that would guarantee the right to life of all human beings. Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel cited multiple reasons for rejecting the measure last week. The pro-life group has adopted several of the AG’s recommendations, and they are expecting a more favorable second opinion. If approved, organizers will have until July to collect the 73,800 signatures required for ballot access.

In his opinion, McDaniel argued that the measure’s popular name must include the effects of the amendment, a charge the proponents contest in an addendum to the resubmission. “Under the AG’s standard of review, the people would not be able to initiate a measure on “Freedom of Speech” because the popular name “Freedom of Speech” would not specifically describe political contributions, obscenity and pornography, artistic expression, the right to protest, etc.,” they wrote.

The phrase “every stage of development” was utilized to define the inclusive scope of the protections ensured by the amendment. McDaniel also claimed that the phrase was ambiguous.

Personhood advocates responded that “the term is used in dozens of state laws, several federal laws, and in the most commonly used medical and biological system of scientific classification of the human being, the Carnegie Stages of Human Development. For example, the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act applies to any ‘member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.’”

The proposal also clarifies that the “Amendment shall have no effect on medical treatment for life threatening physical conditions intended to preserve life.” McDaniel questioned why the mother’s life was not specifically mentioned, supposing that the language was chosen to avoid “constitutional difficulties.” However, the amendment drafters point out that the language was carefully considered and chosen to include medical conditions such as twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome which can pose a threat to the life of children in utero.

“These are just a few examples of the errors Attorney General McDaniel made when issuing his opinion last week,” said Personhood Arkansas’ Preston Dunn. “Our hope is that the AG’s office will act in good faith by offering support to those of us who want the democratic initiative process to work for everyone including those who are gravely concerned about the 4,532 preborn children killed in our state in 2010.”

Denver, Colo. — The Colorado Secretary of State’s Title Board approved Personhood Colorado’s new amendment language Wednesday night prompting Planned Parenthood to announce an appeal of the decision to the state Supreme Court. The board ruled 2-1, allowing the measure to advance to the statewide petition. Opponents have five days to file the challenge.

“We feared that having to come back again for a third attempt might have caused some fatigue in our volunteers, but Planned Parenthood’s attempt to block our efforts will help us by uniting and reminding pro-life advocates of why we are fighting and who we are fighting against,” said Personhood Colorado Director Gualberto Garcia Jones, J.D.

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountain released a statement claiming that the amendment will violate the single-subject rule which limits citizen initiatives to one issue, a charge that has twice been rejected by the board and by the Court in 2008.

Similar to the previous challenges, attorneys for the abortion proponents will argue that the new proposal is “vague” despite the inclusion of a host of new clarifying details.

The 2012 Colorado Personhood Amendment reads: “In order to affirm basic human dignity, be it resolved that the right to life in this constitution applies equally to all innocent persons.”

Revisions in the new language will list the effects of enacting the measure protecting the right to life of every human being. This includes that only birth control devices that kill a person shall be affected, and only assisted reproduction methods that kill a person shall be affected. The amendment will not affect spontaneous miscarriages, and will not affect “medical treatment for life threatening physical conditions intended to preserve life.” The latter is defined as including but “not limited to treatment for cancer, ectopic and molar pregnancy, twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, and placenta previa.”

“Planned Parenthood’s challenge does not come as a surprise. They are losing the battle in the court of public opinion, and the improved language only ensures that this trend will continue,” continued Garcia Jones. “The abortion industry is really only left with one option. It is the same tactic they used to impose abortion on the entire nation— take the decision out of the hands of the people.”

The latest annual report from Planned Parenthood shows an increase of over $120 million in government funding. The group received $487 million dollars from the taxpayers in 2010.

“It’s not enough that they take our money to continue leading the nation in the number of abortions committed,” said Garcia Jones. “They also want to take away our right to petition.”

Denver, Colo. -- Following the historic signing of Personhood USA’s Pro-life Presidential Pledge by five of the Republican presidential candidates, Personhood USA is responding to questions of whether an “exception” to save the mother’s life in abortion law is compatible with the document.

During a recent forum in Iowa, Governor Rick Perry was asked why he had signed the pledge which maintains that “Abortion and the intentional killing of an innocent human being are always wrong and should be prohibited” if he also believes that children conceived by rape or incest are not possessed of the same right to live.  In response, Governor Perry related how he had undergone a “transformation” after a conversation with Personhood USA spokeswoman Rebecca Kiessling whose conception was the result of rape.  “Looking in her eyes, I couldn’t come up with an answer to defend the exceptions for rape and incest,” said Perry.

On December 28, it was reported that Perry had clarified his position by "stating that the life of the mother is the only exception in which he’d support abortion." 

Regarding cases where the mother’s life is at risk, the pledge states: “I believe that in order to properly protect the right to life of the vulnerable among us, every human being at every stage of development must be recognized as a person possessing the right to life in federal and state laws without exception and without compromise. I recognize that in cases where a mother’s life is at risk, every effort should be made to save the baby’s life as well; leaving the death of an innocent child as an unintended tragedy rather than an intentional killing.” 

The pledge explains that both mother and child should be recognized as patients, a position based on physician testimony that the violent abortion procedure is never medically necessary. 

Dr. Patrick Johnston of the Association of Pro-life Physicians explains: “When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim.  If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness, the preborn patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic.  But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary. “

“There are no exceptions in Personhood USA’s presidential pledge because there are no situations where it becomes necessary to dismember a baby,” added Jennifer Mason, spokesperson for Personhood USA. "There is an acknowledgement; however, that in cases such as ectopic pregnancy, the death of the child is unavoidable. With the passage of federal or state personhood amendments, recognizing the personhood rights of both mother and child, women will still of course have access to life-saving treatments and medical care. Procedures to treat both mom and baby can potentially lead to happier outcomes for both patients, whereas abortion procedures, which are dangerous as it stands already, intentionally kill a child."