I've been meaning for some time to write about Colorado's attempt to define a fertilized egg as a human being with full rights. This antichoice ballot measure, known as Amendment 48, has got it all:

• Fetal (or in this case, even embryonic) "rights" trumping women's rights? Check. The amendment would officially change the definition of "person" to include "any human being from the moment of fertilization," therefore endowing all embryos in the state (whether they're implanted in a woman's body or not) with "inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law."

• Co-opting feminist language? Check. The group backing the amendment is called Colorado for Equal Rights.

• Not just anti-abortion, but anti-contraception? Check. "This amendment would make the pill and IUDs illegal because they keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus."

• Ties to "some of the most virulent paramilitary antiabortion groups in the nation"? Check. Dr. James Patrick Johnston -- who is linked to groups like the violently Army of God -- is handling the "national outreach" to antichoice doctors and pharmacists on behalf of Amendment 48.

• A coordinated, national effort masquerading as "grassroots"? Check. There has been tons of laudatory coverage of Kristi Burton, the 21-year-old face of the embryos-are-people-too movement. But really the Colorado campaign -- as well as a similar attempts in Georgia, Oregon, and Montana -- were coordinated by a national group, the ultraconservative Thomas More Law Center.

• A disproportionate effect on young women, women of color, incarcerated women, and low-income women? Check. Defining a fertilized egg as a person doesn't just restrict access to abortion, contraception, cancer treatment, and fertility treatment. It opens the door to charges of child endangerment against pregnant women, typically those who are women of color or low-income. Basically, it allows for the policing of pregnant women's bodies and behavior. And which pregnant women get policed? Usually not those who are white and wealthy.
  

There's more on the community blog, where laurenv recently summed it up nicely:

I understand that many Coloradans are morally conflicted about abortion rights who may be inclined to vote yes on this measure because it would restrict access to abortions. But Amendment 48 is not a measure that can be easily squeezed into this over-simplified "pro-choice" or "pro-life" debate. I urge these voters to take a closer look at Amendment 48 and to understand that it would not only ban all abortions in every instance--even in the cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman is at risk--but would also threaten stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, common hormonal birth control methods (like the Pill), and access to emergency contraception for rape and incest victims.

For more on opposition efforts to Amendment 48 is at Protect Families, Protect Choices. And for those of you who are Colorado voters, be sure to vote no on Amendment 48 on November 4!

http://www.feministing.com/archives/011315.html