Why the ‘Personhood Amendment’ is a Bad Idea

People that regularly read my blogs know that I am a strong feminist supporter and Pro-Choice advocate. However, in this piece I want to specifically take on the ‘Personhood Amendment Movement’ and discuss some issues that will surely come into question as this movement continues.

In the State of Wisconsin there are two main organizations founded specifically to oppose pregnancy termination (abortion); Wisconsin Right to Life and Pro-Life Wisconsin. Although they have similar missions to stop abortions within the State; they have a major disagreement concerning granting personhood to the yet unborn.

Pro-Life Wisconsin is the leading advocate in the State for adopting a Personhood Amendment into the State Constitution, while Wisconsin Right to Life opposes such a measure.

The position of Wisconsin Right to Life is to get a case or cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the 1973 landmark ruling of Roe verses Wade. They are very confident that if the Supreme Court revisits the ruling, with the Court’s current makeup, then they stand to either get the ruling thrown out altogether or that it will be significantly changed to severely restrict abortions beyond the current guidelines. This is a clever strategy and with so many states passing restrictive abortion legislation, there is a high probability that one or two will wind up in the Supreme Court.

Wisconsin Right to Life contends that the State is ready for a Roe v Wade reversal with the current abortion laws that were passed during the late 1960s and early 1970s. They also predict that if the ‘Personhood Amendment’ should pass that it would render all current abortion laws invalid and if Roe v Wade should reverse; Wisconsin would be left statutorily bare. The problem with that, from the perspective of Wisconsin Right to Life, is that there is no guarantee that the legislature at the time would be favorable to passing laws as restrictive as the current ones. In fact, as strange as it may currently sound, there is a chance that the legislature could be solidly Pro-Choice. So it is apparent why Wisconsin Right to Life opposes a ‘Personhood Amendment’.

Pro-Life Wisconsin wants to ban all forms of abortion and by granting personhood from the point of conception, they view this as effectively achieving that goal. However, this action would cause more problems than what it would solve.

The first issue is what constitutes conception and what constitutes abortion. Biologically, we know that when the two gametes conjoin in fertilization that the potential for human life has begun. The very first question is whether or not if interfering with the attachment of the fertilized egg constitutes abortion. Certainly a fertilized human egg has potential, but is it a person prior to attachment. From my limited knowledge of birth control, it is my understanding that IUDs interfere with cell wall attachment as does chemical birth control. If either birth control is used, would it constitute an abortion? If it is deemed that it does, then the sale and use of such jprevention would become illegal. Thus, cutting off the most effective options for controlling pregnancy, short of total abstinence.

The second issue is that of miscarriages. This may be the thorniest issue of all. Fifty percent of all fertilized eggs are discarded prior to a woman even knowing that she is pregnant. Of the fifty percent that survive, fifteen to twenty percent miscarry for a wide variety of reasons. If we carry out the logic concerning personhood, it would mean that every miscarriage would have to be investigated as to the cause of the miscarriage. This would involve examining if the mother did anything that caused the miscarriage, which then could be called an abortion, subject to possible criminal charges. My experience with women who have miscarried is that they generally are quite distressed. Can you even imagine putting a woman through an inquiry after such an event; traumatizing her even more?

If every miscarriage had to be investigated, think of the costs and logistics involved; it would be phenomenal and probably would lead to a huge agency just to carry it out.

Yet another issue is that the granting of personhood to the yet unborn would bring into question what other rights the zygote or fetus might have. In the question of protecting the life of the mother over that of the unborn would be thrown into question. In a sense, the law would view the mother and the unborn as legally equal and who is to make the decision of which one would be saved? What ethical structure could be followed in such a case? There could be strong arguments made, such as the Catholic Church supports, that the unborn or newly born is of higher value because of certain theological principles.

If a “Personhood Amendment” should pass, I fear that it would open a ‘Pandora’s Box” leading to even greater divisive issues. I also find it curious that Pro-Life Wisconsin has all men on their board as well as a male executive director. What does this really say about this organization? At least Wisconsin Right to life is run by women who I think have much greater credibility between the two organizations. In this case, the Wisconsin Right to Life position is more rational and reasonable. Those in the State Legislature who have been introducing bills to give the unborn personhood, should be made aware of the serious consequences of such legislation and if they don’t see the light, then they need to be replaced.