In Alaska, new fight develops over rights of fetuses

[babylonsister]

New fight develops over rights of fetuses

ABORTION ISSUE: Lawsuit filed to keep initiative off the ballot.

By SEAN COCKERHAM
[e-mail]

Published: 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.

more...

http://www.adn.com/news/government/legislature/abortion/story/1031558.html

[StarfarerBill]

1. The arrogance of anti-abortionists never ceases to be mind-boggling.

+1

[Deja Q]

9. Fetuses should have the same rights the post-born in America* have: None.

* in the working and poor classes, of course. Rich people can do what they want. Except send their kids to die for them.

[StarfarerBill]

15. Those are the twin purposes we serve:

To be cogs in the corporate profit-making machine, and fodder for their profit-making wars.

[roguevalley]

16. I haven't heard of this dipshit. I will have to look him up. Its always

a 'him' isn't it.

[47of74]

2. Isn't it ironic

These people don't give a fuck about civil rights once someone is born.

[Dinger]

8. Exactly (nt)

[kevinbgoode]

3. Hmm..well, now what would this mean for immigrants?

Suppose...oh, some "illegal" alien, you know, from one of those places that conservatives like to demonize...drops into the U.S. and "conceives" a "child". . .if declared a "person," does this mean that unborn child also becomes an automatic American citizen even if the mother is deported prior to the actual birth? Ohhhh...this can become VERY fun. . .hahaha.

It amazes me that conservatives, in particular MALE conservatives, are determined that a woman is incapable of protecting her fetus and is unwilling to care for one. It is also amazing that these same conservatives, who demand blanket laws be passed to punish ONE gender, even if...say....five women out of 100,000 actually choose to have an abortion - yet these same conservatives would never allow laws to be passed restricting recognition of their cults (churches) after they commit criminal activities or commit heinous sins. So this is right back to the old controlling thang - the obsessive need among the arrogant elitists that they alone can determine for ALL others what is moral, and any means of tyranny is just fine if it accomplishes their goal.

So why don't we EVER put any initiatives on the ballot to let ALL the people vote on wingnut rights? Why can't they ever be the target for the tyranny of the majority?

[spanone]

4. this country gets dumber by the day

[enlightenment]

5. They're starting this in a lot of states - it's the same sort of push

that resulted in the wide-spread bans on smoking in public places. The ballot measures for that were almost identical in different states; it was a concerted measure - and it worked. Florida seems to have been first, but I've reference to it in Colorado and I'm sure it's being pushed in other states. Oklahoma skipped the legislation and just wrote it into another bill; I'm told that it won't be binding because the law they passed (the one about putting state abortion online and publicly available) is unconstitutional, but they also added a section that allows them to keep any portion of the bill that is not directly defeated by the courts . . . so if they knock down the abortion list part, they still have the 'personhood' part.

This sort of backdoor attack on reproductive freedom makes me sick to my stomach.

[kestrel91316]

6. Hey, I'm all for it. I can't wait to see some FUNDIE prosecuted for

murder because of a miscarriage at 10 weeks, lol.

[anonymous171]

7. Miscarriage = Manslaughter?

[alp227]

10. "It is just insane" sez Alaska ACLU director. Bingo!

Good one, Mr. Mittman. I hope that the voters of Alaska know their physiology better than the morons who wrote this BS down. Besides, to parallel the question a heckler at Justice Sotomayor's hearings once said: "WHAT ABOUT THE STILLBORN?" Because would this law also penalize pregnant women with stillborn babies?

[Odin2005]

11. Forced-Birthers.

[Duende azul]

12. They want to have a say in choosing their names.

[Blue_In_AK]

13. This won't go anywhere.

He may get his signatures, but the people will never vote for anything this onerous.

[Morning Dew]

14. They better not take that fetus person in a car up there in Alaska

Alaska law says that a driver may not transport children under 16 in a motor vehicle unless the child is properly secured according to state child passenger safety law. Children who are not yet one year old or who do not yet weigh 20 lbs must be properly secured in a federally approved rear-facing car seat.

http://babyproducts.about.com/od/statecarseatlaws/qt/alaskacps.htm


bolding mine.