Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Abortion Amendments on 2014 Ballot in Colorado, North Dakota, and Tennessee

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 11.3.2014 4:15 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | Personhood USA/Facebook
(Personhood USA/Facebook)
Ballotpedia.org

This Tuesday, voters in Colorado and North Dakota will decide whether to grant rights to "unborn human beings" while Tennessee residents consider a constitutional amendment allowing the state legislature more power to regulate abortion. Here's a quick look at the three abortion-related measures on Election 2014 ballots:

COLORADO - Amendment 67

In both 2008 and 2010, more than 70 percent of Colorado voters rejected Personhood USA's attempt to give fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses full rights under the Colorado constitution. This year the anti-abortion group is back at it with an updated, less-broad ballot measure. If Amendment 67 passes, it will amend the state's constitution to include "unborn human beings" under the definition of "person" with regard to Colorado criminal code and the Colorado Wrongful Death Act. The previous personhood measures would have amended the definition of person unilaterally. 

Supporters of Amendment 67, also known as the Brady Amendment, have been trying to keep focus on Heather Surovik, a woman whose car was hit by a drunk driver when she was eight months pregnant. Surovik lived, but her unborn baby "Brady" didn't. The driver responsible was charged with vehicular assault and driving under the influence, but not for Brady's death.

"In honor of her son, Heather Surovik has initiated the Brady Amendment to recognize unborn babies as persons in law," sates Personhood Colorado.

Opponents say the measure is an attempt to criminalize abortion.  

NORTH DAKOTA - Measure 1

North Dakota residents will also vote this Tuesday on a constitutional amendment concerning personhood. Measure 1, also known as the "Life Begins at Conception" or "Human Life" Amendment, would change the state constitution to provide for the "inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development."

Some supporters of Measure 1, led by a group called North Dakota Choose Life, insist that it's not meant to address abortion per se and would merely change the state constitution to "recognize that human life is a gift". This is necessary, according to North Dakota Choose Life, because "wealthy out-of-state special interest groups" are trying to overturn restrictions on abortion that the state has already passed, such as a parental notification requirement for abortion-seeking teens.

State Sen. Margaret Sitte (R-35), however, claims "this amendment is intended to present a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. By passage of this amendment, the people of North Dakota are asking government to recognize what science already defined."

Opponents of the measure say it's so vague it could be used in any manner of ways, including to criminalize in-vitro fertilization or taking terminally-ill patients off life support.

TENNESSEE - Amendment 1

Personhood USA/Facebook

Amendment 1, also known as the "Tennessee Legislative Powers Regarding Abortion" amendment, would add the following to the state constitution: 

Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.

The amendment would have no immediate effect, but supporters say it would allow the legislature to more intensely regulate abortion in the future. Specifically, they believe it would neutralize a 2000 Tennessee Supreme Court ruling which struck down several laws restricting abortion access—including a 48-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions and a requirement that second-trimester abortions be performed in hospitals—as unconstitutional.

"For those thinking that a state constitutional amendment may be overkill, in fact its need comes from the state court itself," said Dan McConchie, vice president of government affairs at Americans United for Life. 

Opponents of Amendment 1 point out that the goal of its backers is to make all abortion illegal. "Their pitch is that this would make the constitution neutral on abortion," said former Tennessee Sen. Roy Herron. "How would they like the Constitution neutral on the Second Amendment so legislators could outlaw the right to bear arms? How about making the First Amendment neutral?"

Amendment 1 was placed on the ballot by the state legislature, under the guidance of State Sen. Mae Beavers (R-17) and U.S. Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.), who was a state senator at the time. As a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, it must earn a majority vote from those voting on the amendment and those voting for Tennessee governor. For this reason, Amendment 1 supporters have been urging residents not to cast a vote in the gubernatorial race.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: ACLU and EFF Call Out Tennessee School District for Violating Students' Constitutional Rights

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

PoliticsCivil LibertiesElection 2014AbortionReproductive FreedomWomen
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (61)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Cytotoxic   11 years ago

    Measure 1, also known as the "Life Begins at Conception" or "Human Life" Amendment, would change the state constitution to provide for the "inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development."

    Absolutely horrifying.

    1. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

      Like killing infants after their birth?

      1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

        Considering the huge differences between end if term infants and one day old embryos, nope.

        1. Mickey Rat   11 years ago

          As far as the pro-abortion rights side is concrned, there is no legal difference, they are both just meat.

          1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

            That's of course ridiculous.

          2. Cytotoxic   11 years ago

            Um. It looks to me like it's the anti-choicers who think every zygote is precious life. Read the measure. They're nuts.

  2. This Machine Implies Consent   11 years ago

    Ooh, abortion thread. What's the over/under on comments for this article?

    1. Riven   11 years ago

      Depends on who all shows up to represent both sides...

      1. Loki   11 years ago

        Bo and Notorious are both here, so I'm going with at least 200.

        1. Riven   11 years ago

          Let's get it on!

    2. Almanian!   11 years ago

      Well, it's not like it's about EBOLA, or something emo like that...

  3. Fist of Etiquette   11 years ago

    This Tuesday, voters in Colorado and North Dakota will decide whether to grant rights to "unborn human beings" ...

    Scare quotes, ENB? Why do you hate babies?

    1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

      Goddammit, ENB, we've already been over the fact that you've reached your scare quote quota in your last abortion law article.

      The SQRC levies a 500 dollar fine for each scare quote over the limit.

    2. Elizabeth Nolan Brown   11 years ago

      Dude, it's not a square quote if you're quoting the text of an actual measure. Just a quote quote.

      1. Almanian!   11 years ago

        Whatever it takes "to sleep at night", Elizabeth.

        1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

          I would have gone with "it's hip to be square [quote]".

          1. Almanian!   11 years ago

            Huey Lewis approves

  4. John   11 years ago

    I would imagine that women feels like the drunk driver killer her son. That fact stands contrary to the narrative that there is nothing but a lump of cells of the same value as say an appendix until the magic trip down the birth canal to personhood, whatever that is.

    I think the anti-abortion people are making a mistake trying to change that law. It just allows the public to get out of the logical consequences of legalized abortion. If people are uncomfortable with drunk drivers hitting pregnant women and killing their unborn children, well tough shit. The law on the matter says those are not children and therefore the person cannot and should not be guilty of murder. If people are uncomfortable with that, perhaps they should reconsider their views on if that is a person or not instead of getting the law to pretend it is when it fits their liking.

    1. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

      The prolife agenda is to go as far as the federal courts and the voters will permit to acknowledge the personhood of all living human beings. This not only protects the unborn, but it forces the choicers to reveal their extremist proclivities.

      The *Roe* decision applies only to mothers destroying their ba-I mean fetuses in the womb, it doesn't apply to drunk drivers slamming into Mom's car and killing her fetus.

      That may seem an arbitrary distinction - no right to life when it's Mom who wants to kill you, but a right to life when it's a drunk driver doing the killing - but the blame for this arbitrariness does not rest on the prolifers.

      1. John   11 years ago

        Sending this guy to jail isn't going to save any lives or bring that kid back. Sending him to jail will however make it easier for the public to pretend that legalized abortion really isn't taking a life. I don't see how doing that helps the pro life cause.

        1. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

          I'm not going to second-guess the men - and women! - who have been in the prolife trenches since I was born (delivered into the world by a choicer obstetrician, incidentally).

          1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

            "I'm not going to second-guess "

            One gets that about you pretty quickly, like when you said you'd speak out for weed legalization unless your Bishop told you not to, then you'd stop.

            1. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

              Now I've gotten Bo excited:

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciLllSAcF-8

    2. Doghouse Riley Jr.   11 years ago

      Doesn't the law frown on people driving around with newborns in the front seat? If so, shouldn't the very pregnant be forced to sit in the back seat, which is statistically much safer to be in in a crash?

      1. Doghouse Riley Jr.   11 years ago

        If this law passes, will we see pregnant women charged with endangering their children because they aren't in the back seat?

      2. John   11 years ago

        Its not a newborn until the mother decides it is.

        1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

          The problem of Schr?dinger's fetus has vexed physicist and philosopher alike for decades.

      3. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

        Why just the very pregnant since prolifers like Eddie equate early embryos with born infants. All fertile women should have to sit in the back seat just to be on the safe side.

        1. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

          Shake that ass!

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUJtLjXiNrA

          1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

            It's nice to see the usual connection between religious fanaticism and dementia exhibited.

            1. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

              I see ya, Bo

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgCLURcZUuw

  5. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

    "OMG, Notorious, why are you so obsessed with abortion?"

    Sorry, ENB, I'm simply pre-emptively channeling your response to my comments on your abortion articles 🙂

    1. Elizabeth Nolan Brown   11 years ago

      OMG, Notorious, why are you so obsessed with abortion?

      1. John   11 years ago

        Its the only way he knows how to express his affection for you.

        1. Riven   11 years ago

          I send her macrame made from Warty's discarded hair*. I think we have an understanding.

          *bodily origin unknown

          1. Almanian!   11 years ago

            *throws up in mouth a little bit*

            1. Riven   11 years ago

              Oh, let me help you out.

              /Dabs at mouth with macrame-napkin

              1. Almanian!   11 years ago

                *Ebola barfs on Riven*

                1. Riven   11 years ago

                  Plot twist -- we're actually all infected already!

      2. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

        Seriously, ENB, you post more abortion articles than any other Reason staffer, and I admit I post replies to these articles.

        So if that makes *me* obsessed, then the same condemnation must fall up upon you, and like Ahab and the white whale, we do down together.

        1. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

          *go* down

          1. Almanian!   11 years ago

            Go *on*...

          2. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

            I regret that we meet this way. You and I are two of a kind. In a different reality thread, I could have called you friend.

        2. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

          She's just echoing the LP position on the issue. What's strange is what you're doing.

          1. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

            What's strange is how you so perfectly emulate the front parts of a jackass:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gROO7xSTxfY

            While, on the back end, the length of your penis is inversely proportional to the length of a donkey penis.

            1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

              As usual, your incapable of rebuttal. Maybe your Bishop will give you an approved talking point soon.

              1. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

                So you admit you have a tiny penis?

                1. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

                  Failure to file a denial is the same as admitting, don't you agree?

                2. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

                  I get Catholicism is into tiny penises (and the fondling thereof), but try to focus Eddie!

                  1. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

                    "I know you are, but what am I" sounds like Rabelasian wit next to your lame insults.

                    1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

                      I get your 'touchey' on the subject

                    2. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

                      Tell us about Mary Ruwart and her libertarian purism

                      http://www.thepolitic.com/arch.....hild-porn/

                    3. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

                      But continue to concern-troll, on an abortion thread of all places, about how worried you are about Teh Childrenz!

  6. Almanian!   11 years ago

    EBOLA!! PLEASE!!! SOMEONE TALK ABOUT EBOLA!!!!!

    1. Certified Public Asskicker   11 years ago

      I'm pro-ebola, because no one chooses to be infected.

      1. Almanian!   11 years ago

        The ebola-deniers want to limit people's lack of choice

  7. Almanian!   11 years ago

    As Mickey Redmond says when the fight starts at the Wings games...."Here we go, boys!"

  8. Bean Counter   11 years ago

    "Opponents say the measure is an attempt to criminalize abortion."

    Well......Duh!

  9. Mickey Rat   11 years ago

    If you think a class of human having rights threatens a liberty of yours, perhaps it is not a legitimate liberty.

  10. Dan Bongard   11 years ago

    Doesn't "an inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development" mean that capital punishment is banned as well? Adult human beings are at a "stage of development", after all.

    1. Lord at War   11 years ago

      The death penaly was abolished in North Dakota in 1973.

      So, not a problem.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

She Got a Permit for Her Chickens. Now the City Is Fining Her $80,000.

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 6.28.2025 6:30 AM

'We Can't Let These Sheep Go'

Fiona Harrigan | From the July 2025 issue

New Orleans City Council Considers Ordinance To Adopt Real-Time Facial Recognition Technology

Ronald Bailey | 6.27.2025 5:00 PM

Clarence Thomas Undermines Free Speech in Porn Site Age-Verification Case

Damon Root | 6.27.2025 4:00 PM

America Has Plenty of Experience With Government-Run Stores, and It Isn't Pretty

Joe Lancaster | 6.27.2025 3:40 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!