Our View: The “Personhood Act” has dangerous, absurd consequences.
With Monday marking the first day of Oklahoma’s legislative session, the Senate Health and Human Services Committee is already hard at work considering extreme bills with wide-reaching consequences. One of the first bills up for discussion Monday was Senate Bill 1433, otherwise known as the “Personhood Act.”
This bill would create a constitutional amendment to expand the definition of a “person” to cover from the moment of conception until birth, which would include fertilized eggs and embryos. This may sound appealing to pro-life Sooners, but the consequences — both intended and not — could be devastating to women and families.
It would outlaw certain forms of birth control, such as the “morning after” pill and intrauterine devices, and it’s unclear where other kinds of hormonal contraceptives would fall under this law. Birth control is essential not only to women’s prosperity — giving them control over their lives and careers — but, in many cases, to their health as well.
It also would severely limit in-vitro fertilization, the practice by which many infertile couples are able to have children. In that process, several embryos are created to improve the chances of success. But under this law, even defective embryos could not be disposed of after treatment.
And even accidental harm to embryos in the laboratory may be considered murder. This could quickly become an impossible burden on the medical and laboratory facilities and limit the options for in-vitro treatment.
Ultimately, this bill is anti-life and anti-family.
In addition to penalizing women and infertile couples, this law provides no exceptions for rape or incest. It would force women to have children, taking away even many types of birth control, regardless of whether the circumstances would be harmful to the child or to the woman herself.
But the worst of the consequences are simply absurd. Under this bill, any unborn child (which would now include frozen embryos in an in-vitro lab) could be a “person” who must be counted in the 10-year Census under the current law. And as people, would these embryos be entitled to all the usual rights, such as inheritance?
And then there is the obvious fact that a zygote or an embryo is clearly not a person. They are both simply kinds of cell matter inside the woman’s body. A zygote is a one-celled fertilized egg and an embryo is one that has begun to divide and develop. For the first few weeks it has no heartbeat, brain activity or limbs. It may, eventually, become a person.
The fact that such a bill would outlaw all abortions and encourage dangerous illegal procedures was surely evident to its sponsors after the years of debate since Roe v. Wade. The other consequences were, hopefully, less apparent. But we can’t afford to ignore them.
This bill is nothing more than a cowardly attempt to circumvent Roe v. Wade without directly confronting the law. And it’s obvious why: They would lose.
Such amendments have been debated and defeated in several states, including recently in Mississippi and last year here in Oklahoma. Let’s make it happen again.
A bill such as this must get through committee, be approved by both the House and Senate and then be approved by a majority vote of Oklahoma citizens. Let’s not let it get off the ground. Contact the chair of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, Sen. Brian Crain, R-Tulsa, at crain@oksenate.gov and urge the committee to kill the bill immediately.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
saxman 3 months, 2 weeks ago
The OURViews this semester have been so horribly written. This is no exception.
"It would outlaw certain forms of birth control, such as the “morning after” pill and intrauterine devices, and it’s unclear where other kinds of hormonal contraceptives would fall under this law. "
A "Pro-life Sooners" response? "Yeah. You're right. Good."
"It also would severely limit in-vitro fertilization, the practice by which many infertile couples are able to have children. In that process, several embryos are created to improve the chances of success. But under this law, even defective embryos could not be disposed of after treatment. "
A "Pro-life Sooners" response? "Yeah. You're right. Good."
"Ultimately, this bill is anti-life and anti-family." Ultimately, you have not even begun to prove this statement, and you never do.
LinnyO 3 months, 2 weeks ago
"But under this law, even defective embryos could not be disposed of after treatment. " Creating and then throwing away "defective" humans should be banned. That's not an unintended consequence.
"t would outlaw certain forms of birth control" If there is a significant enough risk that a form of birth control will cause the death of a human, then it should be banned. Birth control that does not cause deaths should not be affected.
"this law provides no exceptions for rape or incest. " Why should it? According to the science of biology and embryology, a zygote is a full human; there is no "belief" necessary about when human life begins, only science. A human has human rights. The new human did not rape anyone or violate the rights of any one. What justification is there to violate its rights? This law isn't forcing women to have children. The unborn aren't forcing themselves on women. The only person violating the rights of others is the rapist. It is a horrible crime, but that does not justify destroying an innocent life.
"And then there is the obvious fact that a zygote or an embryo is clearly not a person. They are both simply kinds of cell matter inside the woman’s body. " They are not "simply kinds of cell matter. They are in fact, biologically, complete organisms and are fundamentally different than "just cells." Even though a zygote is a single celled organism, it is still an organism. This statement is demonstrably untrue:
"After fertilization, the egg and sperm and nuclei fuse, and a new diploid human zygote results (2n) - the first cell of the new animal..." http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100/2k4ch39repronotes.html
"The zygote, the first cell of a new organism " http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/dbefruchtung/zygote03.html
More citations on zygotes and embryology: http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
"This bill is nothing more than a cowardly attempt to circumvent Roe v. Wade " What is "cowardly" about it? According to science, it is a human. How is it cowardly to grant human rights to a human? Any other definition of when a human would gets rights is arbitrary. Practical concerns about census and accounting can be handled are not excuses to deny human beings basic human rights.
Nolan_Kraszkiewicz 3 months, 2 weeks ago
Someone should arrest God, that guy is the number one cause for miscarriages...
Rhology 3 months, 2 weeks ago
--"Birth control is essential not only to women’s prosperity — giving them control over their lives and careers — but, in many cases, to their health as well."
Is the bill outlawing "birth control"? Or is it just certain kinds of birth control? This is carelessly worded. Say what you mean, mean what you say.
--"It also would severely limit in-vitro fertilization"
Good. 1) In vitro fertilisation generally results in the deaths of numerous fertilised human embryos. You and I are also fertilised human embryos, did you know that? 2) There are plenty of children to adopt.
--"under this law, even defective embryos could not be disposed of after treatment."
"Defective"? According to whom? You? Maybe I can decide YOU'RE defective. Thus by YOUR reasoning (not mine), if I have power over you, I can kill you and it's 100% fine.
--"And even accidental harm to embryos in the laboratory may be considered murder"
All the more reason not to create human beings like that, any more than you'd want to practice your firearm skills at a local playground during lunchtime.
--"This could quickly become an impossible burden on the medical and laboratory facilities and limit the options for in-vitro treatment."
And they'd have to go out of business. That's hardly the end of the world, but it would be the end of systematic destruction of human lives.
--"Ultimately, this bill is anti-life and anti-family."
Simply an absurd and ridiculous thing to say.
--"this law provides no exceptions for rape or incest"
So it would be better if the law allowed people to punish children for the crimes of their fathers? How does that work?
--"It would force women to have children"
1) Rape and incest are responsible for >2% of all pregnancies, even abortions. 2) It "forces" women not to murder their children in the same way the law forces me not to drive my car 65 mph into the Sooner Mall. The law protects human life.
--"could be a “person” who must be counted in the 10-year Census under the current law. "
Hopefully the provisions of the law could be amended to take that into account. This is a good, but hardly important, point.
Rhology 3 months, 2 weeks ago
--"would these embryos be entitled to all the usual rights, such as inheritance?"
Don't people generally have to have a birth certificate before they can claim an inheritance? And wouldn't the author of the will and testament name his inheritors? This is not a worthwhile objection.
--"there is the obvious fact that a zygote or an embryo is clearly not a person."
Prove it. Anyone can write anyone else out of personhood for any reason. Hitler did it to Jews, handicapped, and Gypsies. 18th century slaveowners did it to "Negros".
--"They are both simply kinds of cell matter inside the woman’s body. "
Just like you're just another blob of protoplasm and mostly water walking around. By this logic, I presume you won't mind if I disorganise it a bit more than it is now. You know, since you're just "cell matter".
--"This bill is nothing more than a cowardly attempt to circumvent Roe v. Wade without directly confronting the law."
This from someone who apparently hasn't even studied enough pro-life arguments to get past the first level of pro-life discourse. All the stuff you've said has been answered thousands of times. When will pro-choicers actually start advancing the conversation? We HAVE confronted Roe v Wade, many times. Just b/c the entrenched elitist left in the judiciary shoots us down doesn't mean we're in the wrong, that we haven't tried, that we'll stop trying, or that we'll ultimately be unsuccessful. No, rather, we will fight, and Roe v Wade will fall. It's only a matter of time, since pro-lifers have many more (alive) children than pro-choicers do, if for no other reason than that pro-choicers can't bring themselves to stop killing their own. Was Martin Luther King Jr a "coward" for trying to circumvent the unjust Jim Crow laws while ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY fighting to overturn them in Congress? By your logic (not mine), he was.
sf917 3 months, 2 weeks ago
"...pro-lifers have many more (alive) children than pro-choicers do, if for no other reason than that pro-choicers can't bring themselves to stop killing their own."
Are you serious? You just scolded someone else for making what you deemed unworthy "discourse," and then you turn around and make an unfounded statement like that. Your argument completely assumes that people who are pro-choice not only are pro-choice, but are indifferent to that choice, or even wish for women to have abortions instead of having children. And I have to say that never in my life have I met another pro-choice person with that opinion. I can honestly speak for many pro-choice people (including myself) that we don't "like" abortion. In fact, on a more personal level, I dislike abortion. I would never want one of my friends to get one, and I think that if I were a woman, I myself wouldn't ever get one. However, I am not a woman, and will never have to know the fear that a woman who is considering abortion faces. My purpose in posting this wasn't to argue in favor of pro-choice - no one on here is going to change anyone else's beliefs (surprise, surprise). My point here is that pro-choice people are not people who are necessarily "in favor" of abortion. We're in favor of individual choice on the matter.
Rhology 3 months, 2 weeks ago
--" I can honestly speak for many pro-choice people (including myself) that we don't "like" abortion"
I'm glad to hear it. I myself can honestly tell you that I've met numerous pro-choicers who did like it. But let me ask you - why don't you like it? What's wrong with it, if the "product of conception" is just a blob of cells, just a part of the woman's body? What's the big deal? You don't cry over a tonsillectomy, do you?
SgtB 3 months, 2 weeks ago
This piece was obviously written by a shallow individual. The reality of abortion is that you are killing another human being. The author claims that a fetus is just a mass of cells in the woman's body. Clearly, by this standard, an 8 month fetus is exactly the same. Granted, it has a heart beat, it can kick, and it can react with a concerted effort to stimuli; but all of these milestones are arbitrary and as medicine and science advance, the date at which YOU decide that a fetus becomes a human being will change with it. In fact, as soon as a doctor or scientist has created an artificial womb, you will be forced to call that "cell matter" a human being.
The only logical thing to do is to assert that there are two distinct natural points for which the transition to human from "cell matter" can take place. The first is birth, but it has been widely received that an abortion of a full term child is a horrendous practice and is murder. This leaves the second option, implantation. Now, I say implantation and not fertilization because this is the first point at which a newly forming human can expect by nature to be able to survive until birth barring any horrible medical complications. In fact, most fetus's are never implanted and wither away in the uterus and are expelled. This is how birth control pills work. Also, the morning after pill when taken sufficiently soon enough prevents implantation as well. This has the practical advantage of keeping a safety net for the case of rape without having to commit murder/abortion.
My observation and opinion is based upon nature and does not make anything that happens naturally a crime. But you bring up in-vitro fertilization, while I can sympathize with couples who want a child of their own as my wife and I are currently trying unsuccessfully, I think that the practice is arrogant and against nature. I come from a family with 5 adopted cousins. These men and women are as much a part of my family as any blood relation and they are loved just as much. The process of adoption should be made easier so that couples who want a child can more easily adopt instead of grasping at medical straws.
And as far as scientific research done utilizing human embryos, I think the entire situation is as horrible as it gets. To create a human life just to mutilate or destroy it in a science lab is offensive. I know that this slightly contradicts my previous argument about implantation being key, however, the basis for my reasoning is what is natural. And fertilizing eggs in a lab with frozen semen or utilizing aborted fetus's is as unnatural as it gets.
ethios4 3 months, 2 weeks ago
It's nice to see no one has brought religion into this discussion (except Nolan's absurd comment). Protection of unborn human lives is a worthy cause for anyone of any religious or non-religious persuasion.
Rhology 3 months, 2 weeks ago
Doh. I meant <2% of all pregnancies, not >2%. Sorry.
Politicalzen 3 months, 2 weeks ago
Some questions that no one ever seems willing to answer:
1.) If abortion is murder in all caes than should mothers who have one recieve a maximum sentece of the death penalty or is a sentence of life in prison enough?
2.) Should mothers who seek an abortion receive a harsher sentence than the doctor providing the abortion? Afterall, it is the mother seeking the murder not the doctor.
3.) If a woman's life habits (smoking, drinking, drugs, wreckless driving, stress, etc.) result in a miscarriage, should she be charged with involuntary manslaughter? Should the government be able to ban such activities for the timespan that a woman is required to be pregnant?
4.) Should a criminal investigation be required whenever a woman has a miscarriage in order to determine the root cause and whether or not criminal charges should be brought up?
5.) Should a woman who miscarriages and expels the baby at home during early pregnancy be charged with a criminal offense (e.g., the improper disposal of a human body) if she fails to remove the remains from the toilet (the typical location during this situation) and/or doesn't provide it a proper burial (at a santioned cemetary) or cremation (by a crematorium)?
Abolitionist01 3 months, 2 weeks ago
How interesting that you guys are calling this bill "anti-life and anti-family" by trotting out every single bit of misinformation and possible speculation against it/about it, while you also have the audacity to write so wily-nillly a line so cruel an inhuman as: "even defective embryos could not be disposed of after treatment."
Absent the debate about whether Human embryos are humans, your logic reads: "This bill is anti-life and anti-family because it will keep people from being allowed to dispose of defective people."
But, we will respond to this editorial (and others like it which you generate) more fully on our blog in the weeks to come as this and similar bills are discussed and debated.
Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma http://www.abolishhumanabortion.com/ IJP
Dprice01 3 months, 2 weeks ago
Oklahoma HB 1686 passed in 2005, already established that life begins at conception, criminal charges can be brought against causing harm to an unborn child, it just needs to be applied
kimberlyokay 3 months, 2 weeks ago
Anyone deemed a "person" is protected under the constitution and granted the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All humans are people, it's just common sense, and all humans deserve rights.
kimberlyokay 3 months, 2 weeks ago
1.) If abortion is murder in all cases than should mothers who have one recieve a maximum sentence of the death penalty or is a sentence of life in prison enough? That depends on the circumstances, just like any murder.
2.) Should mothers who seek an abortion receive a harsher sentence than the doctor providing the abortion? Afterall, it is the mother seeking the murder not the doctor. The abortionist would be the {hitman} one murdering the child, The mother/father or anyone arranging the murder, would be the one hiring the murderer.
3.) If a woman's life habits (smoking, drinking, drugs, wreckless driving, stress, etc.) result in a miscarriage, should she be charged with involuntary manslaughter? Should the government be able to ban such activities for the timespan that a woman is required to be pregnant? This is already law in 50 states www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/f...>
4.) Should a criminal investigation be required whenever a woman has a miscarriage in order to determine the root cause and whether or not criminal charges should be brought up? Yes
5.) Should a woman who miscarriages and expels the baby at home during early pregnancy be charged with a criminal offense (e.g., the improper disposal of a human body) if she fails to remove the remains from the toilet (the typical location during this situation) and/or doesn't provide it a proper burial (at a santioned cemetary) or cremation (by a crematorium)? Yes
Politicalzen 3 months, 2 weeks ago
There are 500,000 miscarriages in the United States each year. How much will investigating each of these miscarriages cost U.S. taxpayers?
Also, it is a traumatic experience to lose a child. Should the government invade the privacy of a family and investigate them when they are likely going through the most difficult time of their lives? This is not respecting family values.
Dprice01 3 months, 2 weeks ago
The real question is ; if abortion was illegal, would your behavior change? Or how about, if the life you were experimenting with was considered a human being would they be treated with the same respect given to any hospital patient? Applying abstract dehumanizing names is how you convince ( deceive ) someone that everything is OK, the whole Roe v Wade decision was based on a lie to begin with, and that is what some of you want to promote??? A LIE?? And in the same sentence give pointers on how laws should be written??(truthfully) 54million lives later and all some of you can think about is how to "legally" kill some more, mostly for monetary gain I'm sure.
Richard_G 3 months, 2 weeks ago
Politicalzen, you wrote " Also, it is a traumatic experience to lose a child. Should the government invade the privacy of a family and investigate them when they are likely going through the most difficult time of their lives? This is not respecting family values." This already happens when any human outside the womb dies. So, yes, the same or similar procedure should happen for all human deaths. When a human dies, authorities need to decide and assess the circumstances of that death. Often this is very quick, sometimes it is not which is certainly traumatic and unfortunate, but is the current practice under law.
Rhology 3 months, 2 weeks ago
An amendment is needed b/c of activist judges, if nothing else.
ethios4 3 months, 2 weeks ago
Regardless of whether abortion is legal or not, my opinion is that pro-life advocates should be focusing far more effort on providing ways of supporting pregnant women who are at risk for having an abortion. If abortion was made illegal, women would still have abortions. So much energy is focused on changing laws, but what needs to change is people's hearts so that abortions don't happen regardless of whether it's legal or not. Don't rely on the government to fight your battles for you. Focus on providing alternatives for pregnant women so they don't feel abortion is their only option.
Rhology 3 months, 2 weeks ago
--" If abortion was made illegal, women would still have abortions."
1) Is that like if slavery were made illegal, people would still have slaves? Really? It just sort of depends on enforcement, you know? 2) Since rape is illegal and people still commit rape, would you thus be in favor of legalising rape?
Other than that, I agree.
ethios4 3 months, 2 weeks ago
I wasn't using that as an argument against criminalizing abortion. Just stating the fact. Before Roe v. Wade, women still had abortions and some would even if it were illegal again. My real point is that abortion is legal right now, and unborn children are being killed every day because people either don't think it's a bad thing, or they think it is their only option. Fighting the legal fight is good, but in the meantime perceptions about abortion need to be changed, and even more importantly women need to have more support so that they don't feel abortion is their only option.
I don't steal...not because it's illegal, but because I feel in my heart it is wrong. Thus, I wouldn't steal even if I knew I wouldn't get caught and even if it was something I really really wanted or even needed. Likewise, I'd like to see a world where hardly any abortions happened regardless of whether it's legal or not.
ethios4 3 months, 2 weeks ago
I'd also like to add that sex education also goes a long way toward preventing abortion. Abstinence-only sex-ed is absurd (this coming from a person who was abstinent from 6+ years by choice). People need to know exactly how pregnancy happens and have the means to prevent undesired pregnancy, preferably by non-abortifacient means. To put it bluntly, people need to be educated about ovulation cycles and have plentiful access to condoms (and know how to use them).
Rhology 3 months, 2 weeks ago
--"women still had abortions and some would even if it were illegal again"
True, but many fewer. And one could prosecute abortuaries and put them out of business. Cut down on supply and you cut down on the act.
--"I'd also like to add that sex education also goes a long way toward preventing abortion. Abstinence-only sex-ed is absurd (this coming from a person who was abstinent from 6+ years by choice)."
Are you in favor of teaching 11 year olds to put condoms on bananas/cucumbers like they're doing all over the place? Why doesn't abstinence-only ed work? B/c people don't follow it? What in the world is the reasoning behind that? "We teach our children about economics and proper finance and it doesn't work b/c all our kids bought BMWs using credit cards and are now deep in debt!" So, the education didn't work b/c people didn't follow it? Imagine the same reasoning for condom education. People don't use them. Ie, they don't follow the education. Now we fault condom education b/c people didn't follow it. See how ludicrous that is?
That said, yes, let's teach ppl about pregnancy, that life begins at conception, that abortion is murder. Liberals and pro-choicers don't want that, though - they prefer a strong abortion industry in place, for God knows what reasons.
ethios4 3 months, 2 weeks ago
Way to go and take an extremist stance while lives are at stake every day. I guess it's all or nothing with you. Too bad. Every single life is important, and if even one can be saved through teaching birth control methods it's worth it.
Rhology 3 months, 2 weeks ago
Way to go and take an extremist stance on abolition of rape while lives are at stake every day. I guess it's all or nothing with you. Too bad. Every single rapist's life is important, and if even one can be saved through teaching how to protect oneself from police retaliation it's worth it.
See how you sound?
It all starts with a very, very reasonable position - the unborn child is a human being from the moment of his conception. Start there, be consistent, and what I'm saying is not "extremist" at all.
Hemlock 3 months, 1 week ago
This is lunacy, while a conceptus has human cells it has a long way to reach the stage of viability (where it can sustain it's own life and normally where it accrues a portion of rights, with full rights attained at live birth) and you cannot have the situation where the rights of a merely potential human being outweigh the rights of a already living, breathing human being. This also ignores the reality that there is a huge amount of wastage in reproduction - even before you get to terminations of pregnancies, one in four is lost, often before the woman realises she is pregnant. That's natures doing alone and if pro-life instead of worrying about women's choices the lobby groups should be working on preventing the higher rate of natural loss of wanted pregnancies and preventing women being put in the place of having to make such difficult decisions because they've been a victim of a crime like incest or rape, they have health problems or a pregnancy means they will have another child that they cannot care for by supporting comprehensive sex education and making available contraception (which incidentally in most cases prevents ovulation so don't spread that lie). This will lead to absurdities that will risk women's lives - after all what do you do where ectopic pregnancy occurs? Let the woman die of tube rupture in a faulty attempt to preserve the life of a fetal 'person' that was never viable in the first place? Or what about molar pregnancy which essentially develops into a cancer? Anencephaly? Renal agenesis? None of which is compatable with life, but if this goes through an already living person will have no right to have proper treatment and choices about her health care just because she is pregnant. Not even the right to make the decision to terminate a non-viable pregnancy and try again for a healthy one.
As for abstinence only sex-ed saying "don't do it" doesn't work and ignores the reality the vast majority of people will have sex. Instead it means that instead of people making those decisions from a informed basis, when they do have sex they are ignorant as to how to protect themselves from pregnancy and STI's.